The enigma of what lies beyond our observable universe

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Even if you could accelerate or "space expand" a star faster than light, the emission from it would still be c. The velocity of the emitter in no way affects/effects the velocity of the emission. It can only shift it's so called "frequency", not it's velocity. You can go warp 10 and still only get c speed emissions. None faster, none slower.

Emissions are instant. It's like freezing the emitter of all motion, to emit. The only reference an emission has...is the point and time in space where emitted. Once emitted, it no longer references the source of the emission, only the location and time of emission.

Only an emission can establish and reference a "point" in location space......and time. Because it is instant.

Light doesn't sing like sound does. Light is sorta an inverted sound. It's like an inverted pulse modulation.

We use pulse modulation for precise and efficient power control. We modulate the duty cycle. Only with power transfer and control we vary the "on" time.

With light the "on" time does not vary. Only the "off" time varies with motion.

It's hard to concept at first. But light most definitely sings a different tune. Because it has a different kind of shift. An half way inverted shift.
 
Jan 2, 2024
188
24
85
Visit site
"Yes. Some claim everything is expanding but my understanding is that gravity cannot be ignored, thus the tiny expansion that takes place, say, in our solar system is easily countered by the Sun's gravity to hold its family together."
Yes gravity-bound systems do not expand spatially. Quite how to attribute additional space added within galactic clusters is unknown to me - if space is added at all
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
We have only measured orbits in this one system. Measurements of other systems have too much play for comparison.

And in this system all orbits are expanding at a slow rate. And if the only force holding it together is Sol's gravity, then the force of that gravity is slowly decaying. For gravity to decay, there must be a mass loss.

Decaying gravity is easy to propose for a star. Light conversion and solar wind can account for it. We don't see any mass being added. Stars should be constantly losing mass. So star gravity should be decaying everywhere.

But what about the earth? Our moon is also fading away at slow rate. How is earth losing mass? OR....would the sun's decay carry thru with the earth/moon alignment? All orbits use this alignment, so only the sun needs to lose mass for all to spread.
 
The Earth Moon distance is not sensitive to Solar mass. The receding of the Moon is caused by Earth's tidal bulge, shifted eastward by friction, pulling on the Moon from slightly ahead of a line connecting the two body's center's. The force pulling the Moon into a higher and higher orbit each year is obtained by slowing the Earth down slightly. The slower speed results in a smaller rotational energy in the Earth. Since energy has mass, the Earth's gravity decays in this way. Note: It is probably insignificant as compared to the Moon's recession due to tidal forces.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and Gibsense
They certainly propose that for the earth moon system. My understanding is that all satellites(moons) in our system are expanding. All solar system orbits. I have read this several times thru the years. But I don't keep the references.

So that's what my comments propose as an explanation.

The earth moon relation is unique. It's locked. With an elastic surface. A complicated situation and condition.
 
Apr 23, 2024
6
2
15
Visit site
The observable universe, the vast expanse we can see with our telescopes, stretches about 93 billion light-years in diameter. Yet, beyond this cosmic horizon lies a mystery—what's out there in the unobservable realm? Let's explore this enigma ..

The Observable Universe - Our ability to observe the cosmos is limited by the speed of light. The observable universe contains galaxies, stars, and cosmic structures that emit light, and the most distant objects we can observe are nearly 13.8 billion years old.

Cosmic Horizon - The edge of the observable universe is known as the cosmic horizon. Light from objects beyond this horizon hasn't had time to reach us since the Big Bang. This means there's much more out there that we can't see or detect.

theory : The Infinite Universe - Some cosmological models suggest the universe is infinite. In this scenario, the cosmic horizon is an arbitrary limit based on our observation capabilities, and the universe extends infinitely beyond what we can see.

Theory: The Multiverse - The concept of a multiverse suggests that our universe is just one of many universes, each with its own physical laws. These universes could exist in a vast cosmic landscape, beyond our observational reach.

Theory: Cosmic Bubble Universes - In the context of inflationary cosmology, our universe may be just one "bubble" in a cosmic foam of universes. These bubble universes could have different properties and may be inaccessible to us.

Theory: Advanced Civilizations - Beyond the observable universe, there could be advanced extraterrestrial civilizations that have developed technology beyond our comprehension. They might be responsible for phenomena we can't explain.

The nature of what lies beyond our observable universe is one of the most profound questions in cosmology. While we have theories and concepts to speculate, it remains an area of active research and exploration. We're limited by the tools and methods at our disposal.
I don't think we ought to worry about what is 'outside' our universe, let's understand what is inside first, that is a huge amount, 2 trillion galaxies at least and over a 100 trillion 'intelligent' species, none of which we can ever contact. There may be other universes as well of course and we all exist n a higher dimensional reality but we are unlikely to ever find out if that's the case. Let's just spend the next hundred years exploring the wonders of our solar system. We may send tiny robots to our nearest star but humans will almost certainly never go there.
 
The universe outside our "observable universe" is the universe of reality. The real universe is the universe we will enter, occupy, and travel. It also happens to be the frontier, the field, of dreams. No one ever got anywhere without them.
 
They certainly propose that for the earth moon system. My understanding is that all satellites(moons) in our system are expanding. All solar system orbits. I have read this several times thru the years. But I don't keep the references.

So that's what my comments propose as an explanation.

The earth moon relation is unique. It's locked. With an elastic surface. A complicated situation and condition.
Any body orbiting a flexible planet will raise a tide in that planet.
 
Yes gravity-bound systems do not expand spatially.
Since force is a way to model gravity, i.e. Newton, then I suspect the expansion can be treated as such in the case such as the Moon’s radial movement. Thus it would the sum of the forces, but the expansion “ force” is super tiny compared to Earth’s force.
Quite how to attribute additional space added within galactic clusters is unknown to me - if space is added at all
Yes. Einstein, de Sitter, Edington and others were unwilling to allow space to expand, though GR allowed it. Friedman showed it was possible mathematically, and Einstein later stuck his cosmological constant as a restraining term to keep the universe static.

But Slipher’s redshift data kept vexing them. De Sitter could explain them but only in his universe model without matter.

Lemaitre saw a major glitch in de Sitters model as the observer was always in a unique spot, other locations would not have geodesics.

In 1927 Lemaitre published the first expansion model. He also calculated the first expansion rate.

But, again IMO, it’s the sum of the forces for all bodies, including galaxies, though the expansion force is less trivial for galactic sizes.
 
The strength and reach of the closed systemic electroweak force (manifested in the macrocosm . . . by black holes' "black hole" monopole point-singularities . . . well both microcosm and macrocosm) is augmented by enslaving near "emergent SPACE" open and opening (accelerating expansionist) systemic gravity as a subordinated extension of it! Approach a black hole and it doesn't distance itself contracting to a point, but will continuously expand (its monopole point-singularity) in and to its local-relative universe.

The fundamental weak force, micro and macrocosmic, is eternally systemic weakness (disordering, divisive, negative entropy) . . . and, always, self explanatory.

The fundamental electromagnetic force, micro and macrocosmic, is the force of holding pattern closed and closing systemic continuing drawing to concentration, contraction, compaction, pressurizing, and so on.

The fundamental strong binding (nuclear) force is the force of universes' 'set and reset', self-similar to the Casimir force and effect, the universe Einstein wanted ("Please don't hold me to what I said before I knew better") but, try as he might, couldn't and didn't see what, why, and how to realize!

The fundamental force of gravity, including as described in some places, "emergent gravity," is the force of "emergent SPACE," the force of the open and opening system ("free fall"), hyperspace, ("dark" and/or "negative" energy) accelerating expansionism, directional and magnitudinous fractal zooms (to infinities) universe structure....

Gravity and the strong force combine to form the sixth fundamental force of "directional and magnitudinous fractal zooms (to infinities) universe structure" . . . Strong force Ad!: Set! and Reset! eternally to local-relative finite! (The electroweak fundamental force . . . combine! . . . being the fifth fundamental force!)

Then again, always again, there is the seventh fundamental force as I've seen it to be, the Ring of Power; The "'One Ring' to rule them all!: The apex base (base apex) of the pyramid "Life Force" (nothing more nor less than the "primordial soup" (what some physicists have lately come to say is, come to call as, the "Magic" of -- as E. E. 'Doc' Smith called it -- "the Cosmic All").
 
Last edited:
Apr 7, 2024
22
2
15
Visit site
What mankind thinks of is a vast orderly expanse of "observable universe" is but a many worlds' discreet quanta real "hologram" of unreal universe. Beyond this discreet quantum of observable universe exists a chaotic infinity of local-relative discreet quanta . . . of local-relative observable universes only discreetly observable from center . . . th infinity of center-points. Spooky action at a distance. The breakdown of relativity. The buildup of an infinite complexity and chaos of local relativities, of discreet quanta, at distance. The building infinity of complexity and chaos applicable everywhere 'there' is, but not 'here', everywhere 'here' is.
Am i correct in saying that your describing entropy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
How many electricians does it take to install a light bulb. Theoretically speaking that would depend on the size of the bulb and the electrician(s)

Theory: The Multiverse -... Is it my imagination, or is it selective faith? Seems that at times we will need to be of the mind that proof for what we cannot see, nor witness. For whatever reason we choose to associate with that inability; we must take on faith. Which would lead me to conclude that the multiverse must then exist as universes overlapping and unobservantly/unobtrusively interacting with one another
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
How many electricians does it take to install a light bulb. Theoretically speaking that would depend on the size of the bulb and the electrician(s)

Theory: The Multiverse -... Is it my imagination, or is it selective faith? Seems that at times we will need to be of the mind that proof for what we cannot see, nor witness. For whatever reason we choose to associate with that inability; we must take on faith. Which would lead me to conclude that the multiverse must then exist as universes overlapping and unobservantly/unobtrusively interacting with one another
This is an apt description of metaphysics. Science is objective-based, not faith-based.

The multiverse idea does have mathematical elegance going for it, admittedly. There is some weak, observable predictions that help advance it as well. But it is not close to being a mainstream theory until stronger confirmed predictions are established.
 
"Science" is deified arrogance to the max in some people. Too often it has the tone of a fanatical religion in the sheer mention of it in discussions. Since when is the "observable universe" from Earth, strictly relative to the Earth, the sole universe in existence, period?! Since when is the speed of light, outside of a closed system, a barrier to all other speed of closing space, thus closing time, between distant points of the universe, period?! Since when is the magnitude of the universe something absolutely, rigidly, fixed to the measurements of an Earth-bound astrophysicist?!

New physics, and changes to physics thought unchangeable (new dimensions of them being discovered . . . filling out dimensionality more and more), are occurring regularly.

"Cosmology", the macrocosm at large largely beyond observation and relativity, and, at once, the microcosm at small receding beyond observation and relativity, is metaphysics to its core, thus one of many open subjects non-"objective based" too often assumed objective based!

---------------------------

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds...." -- Albert Einstein.
 

TRENDING THREADS