<p><strong>I was reading a book yesterday and it was talking about how space is <br />expanding and we can tell that it is still expanding because we measure the <br />redshifts. It also talked about the three different end of the universe models, <br />how one is flat, one is that the universe collapses backward onto itself and <br />the other was that it expands until every star dies. What I don't understand <br />is, if space is expanding.. what is it expanding into? Is there another layer of <br />space where there is room for it to grow? I mean if you put a sponge into a <br />glass of water, it will only expand as far as the limits of the glass allow it to. <br />Is there a limit to space expansion? I mean we can't expand into nothing? We <br />have to be expanding into some alloted space or are we stealing area from <br />other universes with our expansion? Is the area available for our expansion <br />infinite?</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br />________________________________________________________</p><p> <br /><img id="29efa0bc-ee02-404c-85eb-334f93c8d80a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/5/29efa0bc-ee02-404c-85eb-334f93c8d80a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="101" height="105" /> <img id="c1f1f498-9f76-47c7-9c87-d9a97a718bf0" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/12/c1f1f498-9f76-47c7-9c87-d9a97a718bf0.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="110" height="105" /> <img id="5738f0e8-a5bf-4d61-81ea-d5e2dfd8d180" style="width:116px;height:105px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/1/5738f0e8-a5bf-4d61-81ea-d5e2dfd8d180.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="115" height="103" /> <img id="b10b0206-6c43-4de0-bf20-9974898a23e8" style="width:119px;height:105px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/15/b10b0206-6c43-4de0-bf20-9974898a23e8.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="119" height="103" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> </p> </div>
- Status
<p>What is space expanding into? Every school kid asks that question in 11th grade physics class and is told the same thing: It is a meaningless question because space<em> itself</em> is expanding. It isn't expanding into anything,<em> it</em> cannot expand into <em>itself</em>. As Stephen Hawking once said: "Asking what space is expanding into is like asking what is North of the North Pole. It is a meaningless question."</p><p>But this 'explanation' doesn't make the conundrum any less baffling and confounding to such creatures as we humans who can ask such a question to begin with.</p><p>An even more or equally perplexing question is: Where did the super atom, or singularity that started the Big Bang and our currently expanding Universe come from? What was there before that 'event'? Was there 'nothing'? And is 'nothing' 'something'? This is why most people believe in a Creator or Supreme Being. But where did He, or It, come from? I guess we'll all find out in the end, or not.</p><p>Every reasonably intelligent person ever born has asked the question: Why is there anything at all? Why not nothing? And what is the true meaning of 'nothing'? If you could talk directly to God and ask him Why is there a Universe and Existence? He might answer "Why not?". hehe</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is space expanding into? Every school kid asks that question in 11th grade physics class and is told the same thing: It is a meaningless question because space itself is expanding. It isn't expanding into anything, it cannot expand into itself. As Stephen Hawking once said: "Asking what space is expanding into is like asking what is North of the North Pole. It is a meaningless question."But this 'explanation' doesn't make the conundrum any less baffling and confounding to such creatures as we humans who can ask such a question to begin with.An even more or equally perplexing question is: Where did the super atom, or singularity that started the Big Bang and our currently expanding Universe come from? What was there before that 'event'? Was there 'nothing'? And is 'nothing' 'something'? This is why most people believe in a Creator or Supreme Being. But where did He, or It, come from? I guess we'll all find out in the end, or not.Every reasonably intelligent person ever born has asked the question: Why is there anything at all? Why not nothing? And what is the true meaning of 'nothing'? If you could talk directly to God and ask him Why is there a Universe and Existence? He might answer "Why not?". hehe <br />Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>Thanks For Your Answer Zen.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br />________________________________________________________</p><p> <br /><img id="29efa0bc-ee02-404c-85eb-334f93c8d80a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/5/29efa0bc-ee02-404c-85eb-334f93c8d80a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="101" height="105" /> <img id="c1f1f498-9f76-47c7-9c87-d9a97a718bf0" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/12/c1f1f498-9f76-47c7-9c87-d9a97a718bf0.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="110" height="105" /> <img id="5738f0e8-a5bf-4d61-81ea-d5e2dfd8d180" style="width:116px;height:105px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/1/5738f0e8-a5bf-4d61-81ea-d5e2dfd8d180.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="115" height="103" /> <img id="b10b0206-6c43-4de0-bf20-9974898a23e8" style="width:119px;height:105px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/15/b10b0206-6c43-4de0-bf20-9974898a23e8.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="119" height="103" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks For Your Answer Zen. <br />Posted by connor240287</DIV><br /><br />You are welcome. I hope it was helpful, or at least amusing. That space itself is expanding into some kind of dimensional nothingness is a real onerous of a doozy to ponder! I think many of our most profound questions about the "Whys"-and many of the 'Hows'- of the Universe will remain unanswerable for the time being and for the foreseeable future.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">The Universe is not required to be in harmony with human wants and desires,</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"> Carl Sagan.</font></p><p><font color="#000000">BTW, if you read up a little on Nuclear and Particle Physics, you will find that all matter and energy in the Universe, when you get right down to it, is made of nothing. Nothing but 'fluff'. So maybe God is a magician as well as a mathematician and comedian with a twisted sense of humor.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was reading a book yesterday and it was talking about how space is expanding and we can tell that it is still expanding because we measure the redshifts. It also talked about the three different end of the universe models, how one is flat, one is that the universe collapses backward onto itself and the other was that it expands until every star dies. What I don't understand is, if space is expanding.. what is it expanding into? Is there another layer of space where there is room for it to grow? I mean if you put a sponge into a glass of water, it will only expand as far as the limits of the glass allow it to. Is there a limit to space expansion? I mean we can't expand into nothing? We have to be expanding into some alloted space or are we stealing area from other universes with our expansion? Is the area available for our expansion infinite? <br />Posted by connor240287</DIV></p><p>This may involve some concepts that you have not seen before, so bear with me.</p><p>General relativity is the physical theory that is used to describe space, time and gravity. It is not perfect, but it is quite good and it is the best theory that we have. In general relativity space and time are combined into a single entity called space-time. Space-time is what mathematicians call a manifold.</p><p>Your usual concept of space, in terms of three spatial coordinates is called Euclidean 3-space. If you add time you get a 4-dimensional space, and that 4-dimensional space has a sort of geometry that comes from the theory of Special Relativity. It is called a Lorentzian 4-space, and it locally looks like ordinary 4-space except for a slightly different concept of "distance". Locally that space behaves the way your intuition tells you that it should.</p><p>A manifold is a mathematical object that may twist and turn, but that in small patches looks locally like ordinary Euclidean space. The surface of a balloon, for instance looks locally like a plane (another example is the surface of the Earth which we often take to be a plane over short distances). General relativity tells us that the universe is a locally Lorentzian manifold of dimension 4, called space-time. Now think of that manifold as the surface of a balloon. And imagine that nothing but the surface of the balloon exists - no inside, no outside, just the balloon itself. Imagine that you mark some points on the balloon with a ballpoint pen. Then imagine that the balloon is inflating -- not into anything but just inflating so that the points on the surface of the balloon are becoming farther and farther apart. That is roughly what we think is happening with the universe -- it is expanding just like the balloon. But it is not expanding "into" anything, because the universe is all that there is. You can measure distance on the surface of the balloon without having to leave that surface, and in the case of the universe we have nowhere to go. If you could leave the universe, it would not be the universe.</p><p>You will note one other property of the surface of the balloon. It has no edge. If you were a bug on the surface you could wander all over the surface and never come to an edge. We think the universe is like that as well. It has no boundary -- what mathematicians call a manifold without boundary.</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Finite but unbounded. Just like the early mariners sailing the oceans of Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><font size="2">If the Dark Flow in recent news turns out to be unmistakenly observed, is the cause of it expected to be on the balloon still ? I mean within the spacetime manifold ?</font></p><p><font size="2">(edit to add: Here is the link to the thread on Dark Flow: http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3ad148ee4c-9f4c-47f9-aa95-7a42941583c6Discussion%3a337fa0af-7aee-4f5d-8574-fa14f70d9ebb&plckCategoryCurrentPage=0 
</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the Dark Flow in recent news turns out to be unmistakenly observed, is the cause of it expected to be on the balloon still ? I mean within the spacetime manifold ?(edit to add: Here is the link to the thread on Dark Flow: http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3ad148ee4c-9f4c-47f9-aa95-7a42941583c6Discussion%3a337fa0af-7aee-4f5d-8574-fa14f70d9ebb&plckCategoryCurrentPage=0) <br />Posted by john1r</DIV><br /><br /><strong>Thanks for The Link John, And Thanks You Guys For The Answer's.</strong> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br />________________________________________________________</p><p> <br /><img id="29efa0bc-ee02-404c-85eb-334f93c8d80a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/5/29efa0bc-ee02-404c-85eb-334f93c8d80a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="101" height="105" /> <img id="c1f1f498-9f76-47c7-9c87-d9a97a718bf0" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/12/c1f1f498-9f76-47c7-9c87-d9a97a718bf0.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="110" height="105" /> <img id="5738f0e8-a5bf-4d61-81ea-d5e2dfd8d180" style="width:116px;height:105px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/1/5738f0e8-a5bf-4d61-81ea-d5e2dfd8d180.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="115" height="103" /> <img id="b10b0206-6c43-4de0-bf20-9974898a23e8" style="width:119px;height:105px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/15/b10b0206-6c43-4de0-bf20-9974898a23e8.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="119" height="103" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Finite but unbounded. Just like the early mariners sailing the oceans of Earth. <br />Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>Without boundary, yes. The question of whether or not it is finite (really what mathematicians call compact) is still up in the air.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the Dark Flow in recent news turns out to be unmistakenly observed, is the cause of it expected to be on the balloon still ? I mean within the spacetime manifold ?(edit to add: Here is the link to the thread on Dark Flow: http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3ad148ee4c-9f4c-47f9-aa95-7a42941583c6Discussion%3a337fa0af-7aee-4f5d-8574-fa14f70d9ebb&plckCategoryCurrentPage=0) <br />Posted by john1r</DIV></p><p>Yes. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for The Link John, And Thanks You Guys For The Answer's. <br />Posted by connor240287</DIV></p><p>If you would like to read a piece on general relativity, but someone who really knows the subject, for a general audience I highly recommend the book <em>Black Holes and Time Warps; Einstein's Outrageous Legacy</em> by Kip Thorne.</p><p>If you want the professional x-rated no-holds-barred introduction to general relativity, the I recommend the book <em>Gravitation</em> by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne, and John Archibald Wheeler.</p><p>It is not an accident that Thorne is an author of both books.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was reading a book yesterday and it was talking about how space is expanding and we can tell that it is still expanding because we measure the redshifts. It also talked about the three different end of the universe models, how one is flat, one is that the universe collapses backward onto itself and the other was that it expands until every star dies. What I don't understand is, if space is expanding.. what is it expanding into? Is there another layer of space where there is room for it to grow? I mean if you put a sponge into a glass of water, it will only expand as far as the limits of the glass allow it to. Is there a limit to space expansion? I mean we can't expand into nothing? We have to be expanding into some alloted space or are we stealing area from other universes with our expansion? Is the area available for our expansion infinite? <br />Posted by connor240287</DIV><br /><br />Itself.</p><p>Modern cosmology suggests that there is nothing beyond the universe, because there is no "edge" of the universe in the first place. So, it is expanding into nothing other than itself. </p><p>Or so I've heard. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This may involve some concepts that you have not seen before, so bear with me.General relativity is the physical theory that is used to describe space, time and gravity. It is not perfect, but it is quite good and it is the best theory that we have. In general relativity space and time are combined into a single entity called space-time. Space-time is what mathematicians call a manifold.Your usual concept of space, in terms of three spatial coordinates is called Euclidean 3-space. If you add time you get a 4-dimensional space, and that 4-dimensional space has a sort of geometry that comes from the theory of Special Relativity. It is called a Lorentzian 4-space, and it locally looks like ordinary 4-space except for a slightly different concept of "distance". Locally that space behaves the way your intuition tells you that it should.A manifold is a mathematical object that may twist and turn, but that in small patches looks locally like ordinary Euclidean space. The surface of a balloon, for instance looks locally like a plane (another example is the surface of the Earth which we often take to be a plane over short distances). General relativity tells us that the universe is a locally Lorentzian manifold of dimension 4, called space-time. Now think of that manifold as the surface of a balloon. And imagine that nothing but the surface of the balloon exists - no inside, no outside, just the balloon itself. Imagine that you mark some points on the balloon with a ballpoint pen. Then imagine that the balloon is inflating -- not into anything but just inflating so that the points on the surface of the balloon are becoming farther and farther apart. That is roughly what we think is happening with the universe -- it is expanding just like the balloon. But it is not expanding "into" anything, because the universe is all that there is. You can measure distance on the surface of the balloon without having to leave that surface, and in the case of the universe we have nowhere to go. If you could leave the universe, it would not be the universe.You will not one other property of the surface of the balloon. It has no edge. If you were a bug on the surface you could wander all over the surface and never come to an edge. We think the universe is like that as well. It has no boundary -- what mathematicians call a manifold without boundary. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>So can we circle the universe like magellan circled the earth? I mean.. disregarding observations about how fast you can travel vs. how fast the universe is expanding... I guess I should say.. does the universe wrap around to lead back to itself?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So can we circle the universe like magellan circled the earth? I mean.. disregarding observations about how fast you can travel vs. how fast the universe is expanding... I guess I should say.. does the universe wrap around to lead back to itself? <br />Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV><br /><br />Correct.</p><p>If you, as a traveller, could overcome the speed of the expansion, you would end up back where you started. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct.If you, as a traveller, could overcome the speed of the expansion, you would end up back where you started. <br /> Posted by weeman</DIV></p><p>Well, this is one of the <strong>possible</strong> models for the overall topology of the Universe, at any rate. We cannot say for sure, and perhaps we will never be able to say for sure. It all depends on how the topology is connected.</p><p>A group of research scientists have looked for evidence of this "non-trivial" or multiply connected topology, and have found no evidence for it. But... there would only be evidence if the whole universe were smaller than our observable universe and we were seeing the same regions of space in different directions. If the universe were small enough and light had had the time to propagate, we might find observational evidence for it.</p><p>But it seems, as there is no evidence, that our observable universe comprises wholly of unique space, and we are not observing the same regions in different directions. This is taken to mean that the whole universe is indeed larger than our observable portion of it, but it also means we have no way to detect any multiply connected topology.</p><p>The link below is the paper from the group who researched this.</p><p>Extending the WMAP Bound on the Size of the Universe </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, this is one of the possible models for the overall topology of the Universe, at any rate. We cannot say for sure, and perhaps we will never be able to say for sure. It all depends on how the topology is connected.A group of research scientists have looked for evidence of this "non-trivial" or multiply connected topology, and have found no evidence for it. But... there would only be evidence if the whole universe were smaller than our observable universe and we were seeing the same regions of space in different directions. If the universe were small enough and light had had the time to propagate, we might find observational evidence for it.But it seems, as there is no evidence, that our observable universe comprises wholly of unique space, and we are not observing the same regions in different directions. This is taken to mean that the whole universe is indeed larger than our observable portion of it, but it also means we have no way to detect any multiply connected topology.The link below is the paper from the group who researched this.Extending the WMAP Bound on the Size of the Universe <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />Seems to me you would have to either have multiply connected topology, or an edge. Something I don't get? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Seems to me you would have to either have multiply connected topology, or an edge. Something I don't get? <br /> Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV></p><p>I think you get it, but if you want to confirm it, try the link below.</p><p>The Shape of Space. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Without boundary, yes. The question of whether or not it is finite (really what mathematicians call compact) is still up in the air. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Modern Cosmology, it is apparent to me, is always going to be 'up in the air'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct.If you, as a traveller, could overcome the speed of the expansion, you would end up back where you started. <br />Posted by weeman</DIV><br /><br />And this is because nothing can travel faster than light in the observable Universe. So we're back to Einstein, aren't we?</p><p>Or, maybe not. On the macro scale, galaxies can actually recede apart from each other <em>greater than the speed of light </em>because of the expansion of space in and of itself!. (Because the space between the galaxies on the macro scale is so great and the speed of the expansion of the fabric of space) IOWs, the galaxies are not speeding away from each other in any sense of the term 'speeding'. It is space itself that is 'stretching' that gives the appearance of the galaxies 'speeding' away from each other. And, to my knowledge, it is a fact of physics, on the macro-scale, that the farthest galaxies, relative to ours-hell, and 'theirs'-are indeed receding from each other at greater than the speed of light, in part because of the breadth of the expansion itself. Esto es verdad! No? We can all talk about such cosmological and physical theories and proofs at our minds' content. But it doesn't change the fact that we have no idea what happened <em>before </em>the singularity. And, not if, but when, we find out what happened before the 'super atom' of expansional creation, we won't know what happened before <em>that.</em></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>ZenGalacticore</p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So can we circle the universe like magellan circled the earth? I mean.. disregarding observations about how fast you can travel vs. how fast the universe is expanding... I guess I should say.. does the universe wrap around to lead back to itself? <br />Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV></p><p>The correct answer is that we don't know.</p><p>There are two types of manifolds, closed manifolds and open manifolds. The circle and the surface of a sphere are examples of closed manifolds. So is the Klein bottle. </p><p>Ordinary 1-space, 2-space, 3-space, etc are examples of open manifolds.</p><p>The question that you are asking is really in two parts. First is 4-dimensinal space-time open or closed ? Second, is there a sensible way to talk about a space-like slice of space-time and is that slice open or closed ?</p><p>We don't know if space-time is open or closed. It is difficult to describe a space-like slice of space-time but physicists seem to do just that, and we don't know if that slice is open or closed either, although many think it is closed. I have yet to see a clear definition of what is meant by that space-like slice, and am skeptical because sometimes the physicists take unjustified liberties with the mathematics.</p><p>There is a serious problem with space-like slices. It is a general problem with curved manifolds and in terms of the physics it is a problem that is reflected in the relativity of simulataneity (different observers disagree on what events are simulatneous) so you can't simply pick a fixed time and the look in 3 orthogonal space-like dimensions. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And this is because nothing can travel faster than light in the observable Universe. So we're back to Einstein, aren't we?Or, maybe not. On the macro scale, galaxies can actually recede apart from each other greater than the speed of light because of the expansion of space in and of itself!. (Because the space between the galaxies on the macro scale is so great and the speed of the expansion of the fabric of space) IOWs, the galaxies are not speeding away from each other in any sense of the term 'speeding'. It is space itself that is 'stretching' that gives the appearance of the galaxies 'speeding' away from each other. And, to my knowledge, it is a fact of physics, on the macro-scale, that the farthest galaxies, relative to ours-hell, and 'theirs'-are indeed receding from each other at greater than the speed of light, in part because of the breadth of the expansion itself. Esto es verdad! No? We can all talk about such cosmological and physical theories and proofs at our minds' content. But it doesn't change the fact that we have no idea what happened before the singularity. And, not if, but when, we find out what happened before the 'super atom' of expansional creation, we won't know what happened before that. <br /> Posted by ZenGalacticore</DIV></p><p>Additionally, it's the idea that distant galaxies appear to be receding faster than light that has been used to support the theory of inflation, shortly after the big bang. In other words, within space there is a cosmological speed limit: light. Yet, the metric expansion of the dimensions of space is not hindered by any speed limit. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Additionally, it's the idea that distant galaxies appear to be receding faster than light that has been used to support the theory of inflation, shortly after the big bang. In other words, within space there is a cosmological speed limit: light. Yet, the metric expansion of the dimensions of space is not hindered by any speed limit. <br />Posted by weeman</DIV></p><p>The observation of superluminal recession rates of distant galaxies supports the notion that the universe is expanding but does not require the notion of inflation. The inflationary field did its work in a fraction of a second after the big bang.</p><p>It only takes continuing expansion to obtain superluminal recession rates. The reason is really quite simple. Hubble's Law gives the rate of recession as being linearly depending on distance, basically if R is recessionary speed, H is Hubble's constant and D is distance you have R = HD and to have R exceed the speed of light c, all you need is for D to be greater that c/H.</p><p>What inflation does is to provide a model for extremely rapid expansion in the first fraction of a second which also provides an explanatin for the horizon problem, the large-scale isotropy of the universe and anisotropies on a smaller scale. </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 171
-
-
-
The US is now at risk of losing to China in the race to send people back to the Moon’s surface- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
What a 2nd Trump term could mean for NASA and space exploration
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 3
-
Starlink satellite falls to Earth, burns up as stunning fireball over US (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram