Expanding Universe

SpeedFreek · Sep 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes. Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV>Ok, so you admit that you understand how, the further away an object in space was, the smaller and dimmer it would look.Well, we also find that redshift increases with dimness.And past a certain very dim and highly redshifted dimness we find the size starts getting larger again. This is consistent with an expanding universe. So are those time-dilated supernovae. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

KickLaBuka · Sep 10, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, so you admit that you understand how, the further away an object in space was, the smaller and dimmer it would look.Well, we also find that redshift increases with dimness.And past a certain very dim and highly redshifted dimness we find the size starts getting larger again.  Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV> And the interaction between the stars to cause these size variations will be used to figure out actual size, and thereby, actual distance.  All we've got are light received per second, shift in the hydrogen line, and arc angle, and that raw data is buried in the observations that led to the tolman test which you introduced me to, and I am very thankful.  I will check those links.  Sorry I posted before I read them.  If you would continue to study the tolman test, please do.  You have probably been famliar with it for a long time and I thank you for your diligence.  We're looking for ergs/second received, arc angle in seconds, and redshift of the alpha hydrogen line for each star and galaxy or individual stars in galaxies (not sure what our limitations give us).   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -KickLaBuka </div>

et_earth · Sep 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Galaxies swirl around in clusters, sometimes hitting their neighbours or dragging their neighbouring galaxies apart, depending on how they interact gravitationally. They are stirring each other up.  But these objects are very large and move relatively slowly and these interactions can take millions or billions of years.As we look out into the universe, we see a "snapshot" of all these interactions, as the light from them reaches us. The universe looks to be a very dynamic place, but dynamic over very large scales and durations. Andromeda is the closest galaxy to our Milky-Way and it is around 2.5 million light years away. It is heading towards us and we may collide in around 3 billion years time, but I doubt our view of it will change much during our lifetimes. We cannot "see" it rotating or moving towards us.It takes the Solar System about 225–250 million years to complete one orbit of our galaxy. Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV> I was thinking about the expansion of the universe, when something with mass approaches the speed of light the mass increases. With the universe expanding faster and faster will the mass of the universe increase, or is it exempt? Could this increase have something to do with dark matter? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Sep 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was thinking about the expansion of the universe, when something with mass approaches the speed of light the mass increases. With the universe expanding faster and faster will the mass of the universe increase, or is it exempt? Could this increase have something to do with dark matter? Posted by et_earth</DIV>I think the expansion of the universe is, as you said, "exempt". We here on Earth, orbiting the Sun, orbiting our Milky-Way galaxy, are receding faster than the speed of light from those distant galaxies, just as those distant galaxies are receding faster than the speed of light from us.  And yet, we are receding slower than light from galaxies less than 9 billion light-years away (light-travel time). So if our recession speeds, due to the expansion of the universe, were subject to the increase in mass you speak of (you are referring to the increase in relativistic mass of Special Relativity), then we would have a different mass depending on who is looking at us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

et_earth · Sep 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the expansion of the universe is, as you said, "exempt". We here on Earth, orbiting the Sun, orbiting our Milky-Way galaxy, are receding faster than the speed of light from those distant galaxies, just as those distant galaxies are receding faster than the speed of light from us.  And yet, we are receding slower than light from galaxies less than 9 billion light-years away (light-travel time). So if our recession speeds, due to the expansion of the universe, were subject to the increase in mass you speak of (you are referring to the increase in relativistic mass of Special Relativity), then we would have a different mass depending on who is looking at us. Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>Thanks for your comments.  For myself its a hard subject to grasp.  I was thinking of space-time as a fabric and I questioned whether the fabric of space-time would increase in mass because of the accelerating expansion of the universe? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

AtoZ · Oct 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I look at images from the Hubble at distant spiral galaxies and of nebulae, it appears that the images are frozen in time, althought they outwardly appear to be in motion. Is there something I am missing. Is our perception of time and space actually different in our perception? Example, Nebulas appear to have been stirred up ie; gas and dust,,,I just dont get it Posted by danzaxe69</DIV> It’s very simple explanation why the universe will expand forever. Example an airplane in high altitude must be pressurized. Question is what will happen to an airplane if suddenly a bomb exploded inside in plane all contents will rush to escape through a hole into the space. Airplane was a source of all drifting staff that escaped into space and its contents will be a drift forever. Similarly was happen to the universe also the galaxies must to have origin from where came from. Before “Big Bang” the universe was a pressurized ball in shape of a soccer ball. Something was happen that dark energy stat to push the galaxies to a side of the ball and caused an explosion this event science call it a Big Bang (what cause explosion to accrue in the ball I have describe in my book.)  Science does not have ability to explore the universe 2 billion years before scientists could saw the first star.

R1 · Oct 16, 2008

actually yes, that is what the anisotropy cosmic microwave background radiation space observatories will study.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Oct 20, 2008

I'm surprised that in this entire discussion about determining distances all the other standard candles in astronomy haven't been brought up.  While the angular diameter method is new to me, I can't  see why you are focused on that method almost entirely.I'll list the other methods I know, in order of increasing distance.   I.e. #1 is used locally, the last is used for the furthest reaches.Nearest:Parrallax 100pcSpectroscopic Parralax 10,000pcProper MotionMain Sequence Fitting 100,000pcCephied & RR Lyrae variable stars 10 MpcTully-Fisher Relation Supernovae Ia analysis ~200 Mpc In all of these, Redshift is not used to find the distances to objects.  They do, however, work together to determine the redshift relation which can be used to extend the distances further out past 200 Mpc, and be used to easily determine distances to objects where other methods fail (due to object type or other reasons).  For instance, we may not find a Cepheid variable in a distant galaxy, but we can get the Redshift. A side note on Halton Arps' Anomalous quasars.  He has brought to light many odd cases, which may be an exception to the rule.  He does publish on them, and as of yet has not convinced the main body of astronomers that they need to rethink ALL quasar redshift relations.  Any mechanism he's proposed for intrinsic redshift has also fallen short. There's also another phenomena out there that helps cement expansion:  Hydrogen Alpha "Forest Lines". Maybe it's about time to ressurect the Expansion FAQ....probably have to rewrite it...   <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>

SpeedFreek · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm surprised that in this entire discussion about determining distances all the other standard candles in astronomy haven't been brought up.  While the angular diameter method is new to me, I can't  see why you are focused on that method almost entirely. Posted by Saiph</DIV>I used the angular diameter - redshift relationship as I had been recently studying up on it. It seems to me it is one of the lesser known relationships in cosmology and therefore may have been overlooked by someone trying to come up with alternate theories to fit our observations. Indeed, this was the case with KickLaBuka's theory - he couldn't reconcile it with the angular diameter - redshift relationship.But in essence, the angular diameter - redshift relationship is one of the simplest ways to illustrate that the universe must be expanding. The dimmest, oldest objects, whose light has been travelling for the longest, are shown to have been a lot closer to us at "light emission time" than brighter galaxies from later epochs. When someone comes in claiming that the universe is not expanding, I find this the simplest way to suggest otherwise. It came up in discussion of KickLaBukas alternative mechanism for redshift - I simply asked if his theory could account for the relationship between the apparent size of galaxies over differing redshifts, and it all spiralled from there. It didn't start out so much as a question of determining distance, but more a question as to whether a new mechanism for redshift, like tired light, can account for the apparently larger sizes of the dimmest galaxies without introducing new physics to explain their apparent size. If the larger size is not because of them being close to us, what is it because of? Of course, to calibrate our distance measurements we require standard candles, but whatever candles we find or distances we finally settle upon, the relationship between dimness, redshift and angular size will remain the same. The currently accepted mainstream mechanism for that relationship is the expansion of the Universe.Distance Measures in Cosmology The Distance Scale of the Universe  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

KickLaBuka · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>with KickLaBuka's theory - he couldn't reconcile it with the angular diameter - redshift relationship.  It came up in discussion of KickLaBukas alternative mechanism for redshift - I simply asked if his theory could account for the relationship between the apparent size of galaxies over differing redshifts.  the relationship between dimness, redshift and angular size will remain the same. Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV> Where otherwise i would have left this alone, you brought up my name and I feel the need to correct your claims about me.  I admit that it threw me for a loop.  But I was finally able to reconcile it, I think.  It's a tough concept, and fulfilling if you dont' go crazy thinking too hard about it.  And my concept is NOT A THEORY.  It is just an idea that tries not to make stupid assumptions.  The accepted "angular size" is already manipulated as a function of redshift, right from the start.  There could be one galaxy that is closer but has greater charge density and it will share the same arc angle and the same redshift as one that is further away with less charge density.  Since redshift is a function of more than distance and velocity, they could share the same redshift and look the same size, but be different distances away.  Because you ignore charge, you said it best, all you see is "stuff out there."  As with quasars, I'm studying whether high charge density (as well as positive vs. negative) carries a redshift, and then my concept will be verified.  The anomaly you see at the most dimmest is where the charge of the universe begins to dwindle (but so does distance also increase) and the size grows as redshift increases.      <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -KickLaBuka </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There could be one galaxy that is closer but has greater charge density and it will share the same arc angle and the same redshift as one that is further away with less charge density.  Since redshift is a function of more than distance and velocity, they could share the same redshift and look the same size, but be different distances away.  Because you ignore charge, you said it best, all you see is "stuff out there."  As with quasars, I'm studying whether high charge density (as well as positive vs. negative) carries a redshift, and then my concept will be verified.  The anomaly you see at the most dimmest is where the charge of the universe begins to dwindle (but so does distance also increase) and the size grows as redshift increases.  It's ok to reverse course.  You guys only lose face when you deny it.   Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV>I actually said something along the lines that if we don't make assumptions, all we can really say is "There's stuff out there". Now then, are you saying the charge density defines the absolute size or only the apparent size of the galaxy?If the universe is indeed static, as you suggest, then why does the charge of the universe begin to dwindle at greater distance (look-back time based on dimness and redshift)?Remember, the higher the redshift, the smaller the apparent angular diameter, up to a look-back time of around 9 billion years ago in the mainstream model. Only for galaxies with a look-back time older than that (dimmer, more highly redshifted) do we see apparent angular diameter start to increase again.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

bechcube · Oct 20, 2008

Black holes are just another manmade construct as is the theory of evellution.This theory makes more sense:                       THEORY OF EVERYTHING  This theory was created in 1970 and has been consistently supported by new discoveries in Particle physics and cosmology. In the beginning, there was a naked singularity, which I call the JAH Field. The JAH Field is composed of JAH's in a density calculated by Bechtel's Perfect Cube, the seminal equation of this theory.                                                                                                  BECHTEL'S  PERFECT  CUBE                     The cube root of 10>-50ccm //10>50JAH  This cube root quotient is equal to the absolute value of the Plank length, 10>-33 1/3cm.  Therefore, for every 10>-50ccm of space there are 10>50JAH, and each JAH has a diameter of 10>-33cm.  Each JAH spins at the rate of: w=X/pD, where D=the JAH diameter, p=Pi and w=Rho.// equal a division sign.  Then, w = 2.998x10>8 m/s//px10>-331/3cm            w = JAH spin = 9.54x10>42 1/3Hz.    Because each JAH has equal spin, its True Energy = EE = Plank constant //f= 6.625x10>-4J.s//9.54x10>42 1/3s  EEJAH = 6.949x10>-77 1/3 J. The electron volt equivalent = h//J/eV                                                   The eV/JAH =  6.649x10>-77 1/3J = 4.343x10>-58 1/3 eV/JAH   =1.602x10>-19 J/eV  The mass of each JAH = MeV/JAH x em // eMeV   JAHm  = 9.11x10>-31Kgx4.343x10>-52 1/3MeV// 5.11x10>6 MeV = 7.742x 10>-89 1/3Kg.                           Where       em = 9.11 x 10>-31 Kg            eMeV = .511          JAHMeV = 4.331 x 10>-52 1/3 MeV            JAHm = 7.742x10>-89 1/3 Kg  The number of JAH/e = 9.11x10>-31 Kg//7.742 x 10>-89 1/3 Kg = 1.1766x10>58 1/3 JAH/e = 11766 x 10>54 1/3 JAH/e                                   The 1/3 power of  JAH's/e = (11766x10>54)>1/3 = 22.745x10>18 JAH/e, therefore the 22x10>18 JAH are added to the 11766x10>54 JAH/e and the  eV binding EE =.745 x 10>18 JAH/e x 4.343x10>-58 1/3 eV/JAH = 3.2355 x 10>-40 1/3 eV.  This 3.2355x10>-40 1/3 eV  is the True Energy that binds the JAH's into a relative particle of matter and is equal to the total relative strong force within the electron.  The difference between EJA Hm and EEJA Hm =[E=Mc2] therefore =  (7.742x 10>-89 Kg +4.297x10>-71 Kg)(2.988x10>8 m/s)>2.    EJA Hm = (6.9585x10>-72 Kgm>2/s)>2 = 6.9585x10>-72 J.  The electromagnet spectrum runs from 6.625 x 10>-34 Js to 137 x 6.625 x10>-34 Js therefore EJA Hmax = 9.076x10>-32 Js.  There are 137 prime relative gradations in the EEJAH spectrum.  137x6.625x10>-34 Js = 9.076x10>-32 Js at alpha = 90 degrees.            100 x 6.625 x 10>-34 Js at alpha = 100 degrees                                                                                 45x6.625x 10>-34 Js at alpha = 45 degrees.                                                                                               2 x 6.625 x 10>-34 Js at alpha = 2 degrees                                                                                                                  6.625 x 10-34 Js at alpha = 0 degrees.  This set of absolute values is restricted to four significant figures by using the J/eV, eMeV values.   The Plank length is verified by BECHTEL'S PERFECT CUBE.  The two electrons in each sub-orbital then repel each other with twice this force and this keeps them separated in the sub-orbital. The electrons magnetic moment  precession, as it travels around the nucleus, causes them to follow a figure eight pattern due to the varying repulsive forces caused by the angles of moment of each electron.   All particles are composed of three groups of resonating JAHs with up or down spins, which are bound by an area of combination and when they are separated by force, those areas momentarily create the six fragments called quarks and have either up, down,  top, bottom, charm or beauty (intermediate) magnetic moments as well as the fragments called W+,W-,Gluons etc..  Each JAH has equatorial velocity equal to c and moves the resonating groups of JAHs at that maximum velocity through the JAH Field, where all JAHs are stationary within the JAH Field. These equatorial circles have a diameter of the Plank Length and when seen sidways create strings with a diameter equal to the Plank Length. The absolute electron mass = eEEm = 1.766 x 10>58 1/3 JAH/e x 7.742 x 10>-89 1/3 Kg = 9.1092 x 10 >-31 1/3Kg.  The absolute proton mass = PEEm  = 1836 x 9.1092 x 10>-31 1/3 Kg = 1.67244 x 10>-27 Kg.  Mass of hydrogen = HEEm = 1.67244 x 10>-27 Kg + 9.1092 x 10>-31 1/3 = 1.6733 x10>-27 Kg   Some predictions of this theory are:   1. Galaxies reaching near light velocity at the edge of the universe disintegrate leaving gamma ray bursts  and non-existent optical galaxy photons, solving the mystery of the missing galaxies.   2. Where such gamma ray bursts occur, the background radiation shows a slight increase relative to the average 3 degree MBR.  3. That Black Holes are areas where gravity has been focused, eg. center of galaxy and the JAH Field is not able to resonate any groups of JAHs (matter) through the field, causing no transfer of light photons.  4. That because the JAHs are stationary within the JAH Field, the Michelson-Morley  experiment does not apply as a method of determining the JAH Field existence.  5. That The General Theory of Relativity applies to the JAH Field but not the groups of  JAHs (matter) within the field .  6. That Quantum Mechanics and Relativity can be married in this theory once the non-relative parts are excluded.  7. That the bending of light in a magnetic field is caused by the local inability of JAHs to resonate matter through the field and not because there is a warping of the field or space-time.  8. That the alleged missing matter in the universe is the Zero Point Field creations of hydrogen and virtual particles.  9. That for the neutrons and neutrinos, the rotation of the particle group of JAHs is the reverse to that of the individual JAHs or have spherical shells of JAHs with reverse spin to the group and which will therefore not allow the particle to combine with other groups but will support Beta decay.  10. That there is only one true particle which is combined into groups(matter) and all others are fragments of groups. These fragments are unstable and disintegrate into the known fragments or cease to resonate as a group in the JAH Field.

MeteorWayne · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by bechcube</DIV> This is a repeat of a post in another forum. That can be considered spamming, escpecially since you just repeat the previous post and add no additional comment,. nor do you relate it to the topic of this thread. Please desist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

rubicondsrv · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is a repeat of a post in another forum. That can be considered spamming, escpecially since you just repeat the previous post and add no additional comment,. nor do you relate it to the topic of this thread. Please desist. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> he is hawking a book in one of his other threads.seems a bit spamish <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

KickLaBuka · Oct 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Iare you saying the charge density defines the absolute size or only the apparent size of the galaxy?</DIV>I'm saying ITS size decreases when charge increases (but only after it overcomes kepler's laws); and ITS size increases when charge decreases as it is overcome by kepler's laws.  The absolute size cannot be determined because we have an incorrect method for determining distance.  So we have an arc angle.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the universe is indeed static, as you suggest, then why does the charge of the universe begin to dwindle at greater distance (look-back time based on dimness and redshift)?  Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>Not sure why it drops off, but there's no point talking about time or distance to the edge because we know neither.  Might as well call the edge really dim and really shifted.  And I'm not here to proclaim to know all the answers.  It sure does sound better than the accepted though.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -KickLaBuka </div>

Saiph · Oct 21, 2008

Charge has absolutely NO effect on redshift.  Zip, zilch, nada.  You can test it in a lab, with high charge densities.  Light emitted from, or passing by a charge is not affected. The angular diameter claim, btw, is not based solely on the redshift values.  I'm sure they've used other methods to find distances to many of the objects other than Hubbles Law.  Please refer to my previous post that listed many (and not all) methods used to determine distance that are completely independent of Redshift observations. <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>

Saiph · Oct 21, 2008

-----------MOD HAT ON!------ Bechcube:  That post is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and if it is indeed a copy-paste from another forum or thread it is indeed spamming.  Please desist.If you wish to discuss that subject you are welcome to do so.  However, please keep it to relevant threads, ideally a single thread, and in the appropriate forum, and only in the appropriate forum.  -----------MOD HAT OFF!------ <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>

KickLaBuka · Oct 21, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Charge has absolutely NO effect on redshift.  Zip, zilch, nada.  Posted by Saiph</DIV> I read that it is a step function, and that it deteriorates rapidly, but I"m only on page 11 of Arp's book and I'm not sure i agree with his conclusions already, however interesting are his observations.  How bout temperature?  This charge to mass ratio and influx controls the spin of the motor, luminosity is a result.  does temperature affect redshift?  And how about large magnetic field boundaries like the heliopause.  Can we send light through or by a heavy magnetic field without altering it, such as a charged sphere spinning with current flowing in along the magnetic field lines.    I guess I'm gonna have to finish his book.  It's kind of pointless to go on about this for now.  I have too many questions.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -KickLaBuka </div>

Saiph · Oct 21, 2008

Temperature definetly has a part in luminosity of an object...but not redshift. Light, once emitted, has never been shown to be affected by electrical or magnetic fields near it.  The only exception is when it DIRECTLY interacts with the source..i.e. the photon strikes the electrons and is absorbed.  However, this results in the absorption and scattering of photons, i.e. absorption lines in the spectra.  It does not create a systematic and uniform redshift. This is one of the areas that Arp diverges severely from the main body of astronomers.  He is trying to find some reason for redshift other than expansion, or motion.  So far, he hasn't come up with anything that works with observations, or can be demonstrated in a lab. <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>

Tjaxxo · Oct 22, 2008

I have a simple, elegant rationale for dark energy, and wonder if it has been proposed. The medium into which the Big Bang occurred is configured as a cone. The Big Bang is as a clump of pancake batter set on the the top of the cone. The universe, like the batter, pours down on all sides, spreading apart  while accelerating as it falls. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> He who isn't busy being born is busy dyin'. </div>

Tjaxxo · Oct 22, 2008

This suggests an explanation for the missing mass in the universe - for dark matter - as well. If we exist in some sense on the surface of a cone, the universe we perceive is nothing more than the curving surface we can perceive before, in two directions, the universe sinks below the "horizon" of our perception. The rest of the matter in the universe exists, curving behind our position on the surface of the cone. http://evasion.inrialpes.fr/Membres/Francois.Faure/doc/inventorMentor/sgi_html/figures/2.3.examiner.cone.gif <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> He who isn't busy being born is busy dyin'. </div>

origin · Oct 22, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have a simple, elegant rationale for dark energy, and wonder if it has been proposed. The medium into which the Big Bang occurred is configured as a cone. The Big Bang is as a clump of pancake batter set on the the top of the cone. The universe, like the batter, pours down on all sides, spreading apart  while accelerating as it falls. Posted by Tjaxxo</DIV> This is a simple explanation but it does not jibe with the observed universe.  The expansion of the universe was slowing down for many billions of years, NOW it is accelerating.  Your idea indicates that it should have always been accelerating.Also in the batter and cone example gravity is the force that causes the acceleration of the batter - what is the force that causes the universe to accelerate.  All you have done is replace one unknown with another unknown.But keep quesitoning and thinking! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Tjaxxo · Oct 22, 2008

Hmm. Not jibing with the observed universe IS a problem, isn't it? Of course, maybe my cone isn't a perfect cone, but is flatter at the top [ie, nearer the time of the Big Bang] and at some point becomes steeper.Needless to say, there is also the issue that I'm simply replacing Dark Energy and Dark Matter with a single new concept, Dark Gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> He who isn't busy being born is busy dyin'. </div>

Tjaxxo · Oct 22, 2008

A sphere, perhaps. The universe does like spheres, and near-spheres.  http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/.element/img/1.0/sections/mag/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/sherwin-williams_logo.jpg Acceleration is due to the steepening grade of the sphere as we move away from the initial "north pole." All this assumes of course that the shape is a regular shape. It doesn't need to be.  Also, it seems to me that my "Dark Gravity" isn't quite as "dark" as the "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" it would replace. None are detectable, but at least with Dark Gravity we can posit it as a "gravitational" force exerted upon one dimension by another. Is there precedent for such a thing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> He who isn't busy being born is busy dyin'. </div>

SpeedFreek · Oct 22, 2008

Try the shape made by the line below:  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/11/ecd755d1-7475-46fc-ab40-fd3472429afa.Medium.jpg" alt="" />The scale up the left hand side represents the rate of expansion.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Expanding Universe

SpeedFreek

Guest

KickLaBuka

Guest

et_earth

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

et_earth

Guest

AtoZ

Guest

R1

Guest

Saiph

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

KickLaBuka

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

bechcube

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

KickLaBuka

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

KickLaBuka

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Tjaxxo

Guest

Tjaxxo

Guest

origin

Guest

Tjaxxo

Guest

Tjaxxo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page