Expanding Spacetime in a Contracting Universe

nojocujo · Nov 22, 2005

It seems that we are stuck on redshift and its' affects or how it may be realized. I see and understand Hubbles Constant and also why Einstein was forced to recognize it. I think that blackholes have a major play here in that most agree that they do exist and the effects of their gravity have on both space and time. Let us assume that the universe is not expanding or static but instead contracting as GR originally predicted. Let us also assume that matter through gravity aggregate matter and as predicted by Einstein and spacetime. Through this aggregation spacetime is curved and if applied correctly we would see the universe as we see it today with no real center due to spacetime being flattened between pockets of matter aggregations and light traversing these spacetime anomalies always being incrementally redshifted as it we see it now. Blackholes consuming all matter and energy and through e=mc^2 convert both to gravitational attraction stretching spacetime further still and in this flattened spacetime time speeds up but is conserved by the slowing of time in the blackholes. The end result would be that light would be redshifted and as the collapse speeds up we would also see that but instead of dark energy powering it we would have a perfectly understandable explanation for the force causing the accelerating contraction.....GRAVITY!

newtonian · Nov 23, 2005

nojocujo - What observational basis do you have for thinking our universe is contracting?

nojocujo · Nov 23, 2005

The problem is that the redshifts that have been used to establish the Hubble constant and subsequently dark energy would be the same redshifts seen for a contracting universe with spacetime consumption (redshift dependent on the amount of consumption). Because of Hubbles claims Einstien had to modify GR through the Einstein-de Sitter solution and replaced Lambda which described a static universe now that there is an expanding universe it is back in GR but Lambda can describe a contracting universe and the observed redshifts could describe either. A contracting universe does not require some unseen unfelt repulsive force.

telfrow · Nov 23, 2005

When Albert Einstein was working on his equations for the theory of general relativity, he threw in a cosmological constant to bring the universe into harmonious equilibrium. But subsequent observations by Edwin Hubble proved that the universe was not static. Rather, galaxies were flying apart at varying speeds. Einstein abandoned the concept, calling it the biggest blunder of his life's work. Observations in the 1990s, however, proved that the universe was not only flying apart, it was doing so faster and faster. This seemed to point to a dark energy filling space that actually repelled ordinary matter with its gravity, in contrast to all other known stuff, including dark matter. A number of theories have been developed to explain what this dark energy might be, including Einstein's long discarded cosmological constant. Full story here: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=00023144-9B65-1383-9A5083414B7FFE87 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

nojocujo · Nov 23, 2005

Yes Lambda has been revived. It was 1998 when it was discovered that the universe was "flying apart" (supernova cosmology project headed by Saul Perlmutter and the High Z project both coming to the same conclusion). One of the theories is Quintessence by Robert Caldwell (very smart). I just want you to consider that maybe at the fork in the road when Hubble determined that the universe was expanding and the observations support it that possibly with matter aggregations consuming spacetime we revert back to the newtonian model of a collapsing universe which the same observations could support and there is no need for the at this point messy dark energy. Messy referring to the fact that it has not yet been defined. It would be the opposite of gravity being repulsive and demonstrating similar but opssing attributes and I assume strenghtingon the square.

jatslo · Nov 23, 2005

If dark energy and matter is above and below the visible thresholds of direct and indirect observations, then it is quite possible that the universe is expanding as a result, but it is philosophical to think this way. Hawking, and others, like me, are trying to unite the sciences of quantum and cosmology through infinite universes, whereas our galaxy could be a doorway into a total different universe, for example. I will stop here, so I can manage any negative energy that is directed towards me, myself, and I. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

nojocujo · Nov 23, 2005

Hubble concluded that the observed redshift was attributable to an expanding universe. Could the observed redshifts be the result of matter aggregating or consuming spacetime?

kmarinas86 · Nov 23, 2005

http://www.scienceforums.com/astronomy-cosmology/3123-redshift-z.html

kmarinas86 · Nov 23, 2005

Outer spacetime is hyperbolic. That explains why the galaxies are diverging.

nojocujo · Nov 24, 2005

An expanding universe requires a flatter spacetime while a contraction requires curvature. I am not sure where the link is going. The curved spacetime in a contracting universe would still be flattened to a degree by the consumption of spacetime by matter.

harmonicaman · Nov 24, 2005

There are all kinds of interesting conjectures that "m" is either comsuming or ejecting time and gravity; but what we observe is the Comological Redshift and an expanding universe. The exact hows and whys are still a bit vague at this time. I also think we will find answers to these questions when we understand more about how the sub-atomic universe works.

nojocujo · Nov 24, 2005

I couldn't or should I say wouldn't conceive a consumption of spacetime and I only saw it being warped by gravity. Then the very warpage itself indicated a consumption and I still fought it. I assume a static fabric of spacetime and should regarding reference frames so I never saw the stretching of spacetime dynamically. You stated conclusively that the universe is expanding (Hubbles redshift) but just for a second take all the matter including dark and stretch spacetime between the aggregations and what happens to the light within the intervening spacetime?

eric2006 · Nov 24, 2005

The Big Bang theory of the universe could be wrong the cosmological red shift could be due to the Compton effect rather than the Doppler effect. This could explain observations of bright very long wavelength extragalactic radio waves. Quasars may be much closer than their red shift would indicate if they have an "intrinsic" red shift due to being surrounded by a 'fuzzy' atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual red shift as the light travels through it and loses energy to these electrons per the Compton effect. If quasars are nearby, they may even exhibit proper motion in the sky as the Earth travels around the sun. Such a proper motion has been seen. Some quasars may be double stars, with one member being an ordinary star and the other exhibiting a large red shift and being labeled as a quasar. The 100,000th Hubble Image is a good candidate for such a pair. The universe could be static. I doubt it and I am not sure how much thought is even given to this theory. I would stick with Doppler shift and an expanding universe.

kmarinas86 · Nov 24, 2005

An expanding universe requires a flatter spacetime while a contraction requires curvature. An accelerating, expanding universe needs hyperbolic curvature. An accelerating, contracting universe needs spherical curvature.

kmarinas86 · Nov 24, 2005

The curvature produced by a given mass is a constant. It makes sense that where there is greater curvature, there is greater mass.

kmarinas86 · Nov 24, 2005

The nucleus of an atom can be compared to a universe which neither collapses to a point nor expands to infinity. Anything between two positively charged protons will think it's in an expanding universe. Anything inside the proton will think the universe is collapsing.

Saiph · Nov 24, 2005

problem with compton: It causes reddening, sure, but it doesn't cause redshift. The lines in the spectrum of light will be weakened, as photons are scattered into that wavelength range. However, the position of the lines will not be moved around. An emission line at say 600 nm, will remain at 600 nm. Compton scattering will only "redden" the overall light, shifting the light as a whole away from the line, weakening it, and causing an increase in the intensity of redder light. Also, you say there's a dense mass of electrons near a quasar and other such stuff, and that's true. However there is, for most objects, more dust and material in the way being imposed by our own atmosphere, than what a photon interacts with in intergalactic and interstellar space. For instance, the column density of an average line of sight, in our own galaxy is less than the number of atoms present in a cubic meter on earth. A column density is the number of atoms between an object and observer, spreadover the area being looked at. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

eric2006 · Nov 24, 2005

I'm guessing your casting your ballot against a static universe? I'm not sure how long that anti-big bang theory has been around. How can the Compton effect even be relevant to our planet with such a weak gravitational field? I'm not sure how the compton effect is relevant when speaking of the column line for our galaxy. We can use doppler to figure out that our galaxy is a spiral and spinning. My understanding is that quasars should be moving away from us. If so shouldn't other galaxies be moving away also? Why do galaxies collide in an expanding universe?

nojocujo · Nov 24, 2005

I understand that assuming spacetime is static the nature of the universe (expanding or contracting) defines spacetime curvature and all observations would indicate and expanding universe. Let's assume with a contracting universe and a spacetime consumption by matter aggregations that exceeds the velocity of the contraction a hyperbolic spacetime structure and its' inherent qualities would be observable in a contracting universe. As the contraction increased so would the qualities of an increasing hyperbolic spacetime structure and the observable reading of redshift indicating a flatter spacetime due to the gravitational attraction of matter and gravitational consumption of spacetime. This eliminates the requirement of some new kind of energy with repulsive characteristics. The whole problem with this what if scenario is that Hubble had to be wrong in the first place. and Einstein should not have secondguessed himself even though his model was for a static universe. I know that Hubble enjoys universal acceptance and even I have or had a real problem not rejecting this which I did over and over. I felt very comfortable with Hubbles expanding universe until dark energy had to exist to provide a means to propel the expanding universe. The what if of a contracting universe with a corresponding spacetime consumption indicating a flatter spacetime than would appear in traditional models does make for a simple explanation for the apparent acceleration observed and has easily explained forces that drive that acceleration. Could Hubble have been wrong?

nojocujo · Nov 24, 2005

It is the elasticity of the curvature of spacetime that is relevant. Given a spacetime curvature for a given mass and merge another mass with that one is spacetime not distorted and flattened between the two masses. Due to its' elasticity does spacetime not precede the mass in the merger?

kmarinas86 · Nov 24, 2005

It is the elasticity of the curvature of spacetime that is relevant. Given a spacetime curvature for a given mass and merge another mass with that one is spacetime not distorted and flattened between the two masses. Right. Due to its' elasticity does spacetime not precede the mass in the merger? Right. The masses are moved together, and then the displacement of space-time follows it. It is like surface tension (mass*acceleration/area). Two objects resting on water tend to stick to one another. The volume of water is hardly compressed, and it nearly constant. So the water buldges around the "rest masses" due to this surface tension. But these "rest masses" can slide toward another because they help push the water down. Maybe spacetime behaves in a similar manner.

nojocujo · Nov 24, 2005

The doppler effect would not be the cause of a redshift where spacetime was being stretched and the light traversing that spacetime was also stretched. It would appear as if it had been doppler shifted though. I have a similar post under space and astronomy that might make this question clearer.

nojocujo · Nov 25, 2005

If we look at a blackhole we would observe a gradient of spacetime compression. In this sense I see a Doppler effect on spacetime due to its' elasticity. Wouldn't this effect hold true and have something similar to the doppler effect on spacetime between two masses?

kingjuggs · Nov 25, 2005

If we can get the nano-bot tech off the ground, we can get out there and pull in solid platinum asteroids and more!

vogon13 · Nov 25, 2005

Hubble noted that dimmer galaxies had greater redshifts. Distance and recessional velocity correlated (on average) with brightness. As telescopes improve, and the various astronomical 'yardsticks' are extended, they are found to remain correlated overall, and with the occaisional tweaks of fine tuned theories and new observations, self consistent. Recall the supernova of 1987 in the Megallanic Cloud has had its distance measured via simple geometry, and that there are Cepheid variables in that neighboring galaxy and that (IIRC) the HST can see Cephied variables out to the Virgo cluster. The expanding universe is a fact out to enormous distances, and is reasonably extrapolated to the dim flecks in the HST deep field images now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

Expanding Spacetime in a Contracting Universe

nojocujo

Guest

newtonian

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

telfrow

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

jatslo

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

eric2006

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Saiph

Guest

eric2006

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

kingjuggs

Guest

vogon13

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page