Where is the big hole?

[BoJangles]

<p style="margin:0cm0cm10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">If the universe is expanding from a single point, shouldn&rsquo;t there be a big gaping hole representing the centre of the explosion?</font></p><p style="margin:0cm0cm10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">I.e. we are shown the penny and balloon analogy, you stick pennies on a balloon, and watch them uniformly expand. Now if that is the case (and I'm no expert to say it isn&rsquo;t), where is the big hole it leaves? unless of course, things aren&rsquo;t expanding at the same pace. This seems counter intuitive.</font></p><p style="margin:0cm0cm10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">It would mean some weird inverse square maths must be going on with matter closer to the true centre of the explosion, would it not?</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the universe is expanding from a single point, shouldn&rsquo;t there be a big gaping hole representing the centre of the explosion?I.e. we are shown the penny and balloon analogy, you stick pennies on a balloon, and watch them uniformly expand. Now if that is the case (and I'm no expert to say it isn&rsquo;t), where is the big hole it leaves? unless of course, things aren&rsquo;t expanding at the same pace. This seems counter intuitive.It would mean some weird inverse square maths must be going on with matter closer to the true centre of the explosion, would it not? <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV>There's no center to the explosion.. which was an expansion, rather. &nbsp;Explosion is a shockwave of overpressure. &nbsp;Whereas the BB was space itself expanding, and the expansion happened everywhere at the same time. &nbsp;<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BoJangles]

<font face="Calibri" size="3"><p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:0cm" class="MsoNormal">How can there not be a centre, everything has a centre? Surely if we have come from a big bang, then a sphere would be the logical shape of the universe, where is the centre of that sphere. Additionally shouldn&rsquo;t the background radiation be stronger towards the middle of the universe? After all most the matter of the universe has traversed that small bit of space. Something smells a bit fishy here (but that&rsquo;s obviously my lack of understanding).</p></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How can there not be a centre, everything has a centre? Surely if we have come from a big bang, then a sphere would be the logical shape of the universe, where is the centre of that sphere. Additionally shouldn&rsquo;t the background radiation be stronger towards the middle of the universe? After all most the matter of the universe has traversed that small bit of space. Something smells a bit fishy here (but that&rsquo;s obviously my lack of understanding). <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV>There's no middle, no center. &nbsp;Look at the analogy of the balloon you mentioned: &nbsp;which point on it is equidistant to every other point on the surface? &nbsp;That's the definition of a center, a middle.</p><p>edit- one thing you may not have in your picture of the universe is that it has no boundaries. &nbsp;If there is one, you "come back out the other end". &nbsp;If you're the dot, and the brackets are the ends of space, your travel would look like this:</p><p>[ . &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ]</p><p>[ &nbsp; . &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ]</p><p>[ &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;. &nbsp; &nbsp;]</p><p>[ &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; . ]</p><p>[. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;]</p><p>And so on, with no discontinuity. &nbsp;So the space at the "end" of the BB was expanding alongside the space just on the other side of the "end" of the cosmos... Once you have that picture settled well enough, you remove any notion of "end" or "edge", because there isn't any.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BoJangles]

<p>Oh i see, so when we talk about the balloon we are talking about the surface, and not the volume of it.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh i see, so when we talk about the balloon we are talking about the surface, and not the volume of it.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV><br />Yes.</p><p>A pretty good page about this:</p><p>http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/bigbang.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh i see, so when we talk about the balloon we are talking about the surface, and not the volume of it.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>Correct. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[BoJangles]

<font face="Calibri"><p style="margin:0cm0cm10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3">If the universe folds back on itself, like a bug on a broomstick, then if I send a huge gamma ray burst out in any direction and could stay in the same spot , would it hit me from behind at some point in the future ?</font></p><p style="margin:0cm0cm10pt" class="MsoNormal"><br />&nbsp;</p></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

<p>Probably not. Look at the animation at the top of this page. But if expansion stopped, you would.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the universe is expanding from a single point, shouldn&rsquo;t there be a big gaping hole representing the centre of the explosion?I.e. we are shown the penny and balloon analogy, you stick pennies on a balloon, and watch them uniformly expand. Now if that is the case (and I'm no expert to say it isn&rsquo;t), where is the big hole it leaves? unless of course, things aren&rsquo;t expanding at the same pace. This seems counter intuitive.It would mean some weird inverse square maths must be going on with matter closer to the true centre of the explosion, would it not? <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>We exist in a manifold.&nbsp; </p><p>If you want to use the balloon analogy, you need to realize that it is a 2 dimensional surface (2 manifold) and nothing more.&nbsp; If you insist on considering what is inside and outside of the balloon, you would refer to it as a 2 manifold with 1 dimension of time.&nbsp; The center of the balloon would be T=0.&nbsp; Anything below the surface would the past and anything above the surface would be the future.</p><p>We exist in 3 spatial dimensions (that is our surface), plus 1 dimension of time.&nbsp; You might consider time to be the expansion of the universe, but instead your pennies existing in a 2 dimensional surface, you have clusters of galaxies existing in a 3 dimensional 'surface'.&nbsp;</p><p>In General Relativity these are combined to become a 4 dimensional manifold or, more commonly, spacetime manifold.</p><p>As has been stated, the universe is sometimes considered finite, yet unbounded like the surface of a balloon... the expansion is happening everywhere on that surface.&nbsp; Extrapolate up to our spacetime manifold and the same thing is happening.&nbsp; The expansion of the universe is happening everywhere.</p><p>There is no center, nor is there a preferred direction in space.&nbsp; There is no north or south, right or left, up or down.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the universe folds back on itself, like a bug on a broomstick, then if I send a huge gamma ray burst out in any direction and could stay in the same spot , would it hit me from behind at some point in the future ?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>If I'm not mistaken, I believe that is only valid in a static universe.&nbsp; If it we are in an inflationary, expanding universe, it could not circumnavigate.&nbsp; The reason it would due to an expanding universe is due to the metric expansion of space.&nbsp; The larger the distance, the faster expansion... the will result in superluminal expansion rates between coordinates in space.&nbsp; Our particle horizon simply doesn't keep up with the expansion. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[BoJangles]

<p style="margin:0cm0cm10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Wow this stuff is certainly brain numbing. </font></p><p style="margin:0cm0cm10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Expansion seems an overly complicated answer. I mean that in regards to the whole expansion / dark energy / zero point energy theories, it all so abstract and contrived and starts to boarder on a pseudo religion ( as little of it can be demonstrated in a lab). Though I am trying to educate myself daily in these areas, it seems I still have lots to learn. </font></p><p style="margin:0cm0cm10pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Calibri" size="3">Couldn&rsquo;t expansion be tested by looking at the most red shifted objects in the sky and watching them slowly disappear? Or at least watch the red shift value slightly decrease over the course of a year or 2? After all the most distant objects are receding from us exceptionally fast?, I wonder what precision you would need in red shift to be able to do this, and I suppose the next question is what is the precision of red shift on any normal observation, I notice they give us 1 or 2 decimal places when quoted in science literature, that does not seem very precise at all.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog.  With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong>Wow this stuff is certainly brain numbing.</strong></p><p>You're not alone in that thought.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Expansion seems an overly complicated answer.</strong> </p><p>Here's a paper titled, "Expanding Confusion:&nbsp; Common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe".&nbsp; It's not too overly complicated.&nbsp; Some areas might be a bit overwhelming, but they also offer quite a bit of clear explanation that a layman like myself can understand. </p><p>http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808</p><p><strong>I mean that in regards to the whole expansion / dark energy / zero point energy theories, it all so abstract and contrived and starts to boarder on a pseudo religion ( as little of it can be demonstrated in a lab).</strong></p><p>Might not be able to demonstrate it in a lab here on Earth, but certainly observing the universe in its natural state makes for the best lab available.<br /> </p><p><strong>Though I am trying to educate myself daily in these areas, it seems I still have lots to learn.</strong></p><p>Even the leaders in the field are trying to educate themselves daily and would admit they have much to learn.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Couldn&rsquo;t expansion be tested by looking at the most red shifted objects in the sky and watching them slowly disappear? Or at least watch the red shift value slightly decrease over the course of a year or 2?&nbsp; After all the most distant objects are receding from us exceptionally fast?&nbsp; </strong><strong>I wonder what precision you would need in red shift to be able to do this...</strong></p><p>Certainly, but we currently don't have precise enough equipment to detect these changes over human timescales.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>...and I suppose the next question is what is the precision of red shift on any normal observation, I notice they give us 1 or 2 decimal places when quoted in science literature, that does not seem very precise at all.</strong> </p><p>I guess only as precise as our instruments are in detecting the the apparent magnitude or brightness versus apparent luminosity. Using Cephid Variables is quite precise.&nbsp; Since we can accurately determine the distance of nearby ones using the parallax method, we extrapolate out to further distances.&nbsp; Type Ia supernovae let us go to even further distances.</p><p>Using spectral analysis of stars and galaxies and determining what is being emitted versus what is being observed, you can determine redshift.</p><p>Hubble put the two together and noticed the correlation between distance and redshift.&nbsp; So, for distances that are beyond using the parallax method, we use redshift.&nbsp; From that we get the Hubble Constant, or the expansion of the universe.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I'm not mistaken, I believe that is only valid in a static universe.&nbsp; If it we are in an inflationary, expanding universe, it could not circumnavigate.&nbsp; The reason it would due to an expanding universe is due to the metric expansion of space.&nbsp; The larger the distance, the faster expansion... the will result in superluminal expansion rates between coordinates in space.&nbsp; Our particle horizon simply doesn't keep up with the expansion. &nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />derekmcd,</p><p>&nbsp; Your response brings some questions to mind.&nbsp; As I understand it recent evidence suggests that the expansion is increasing in velocity.&nbsp; Given an exponential increase in speed to accommodate the geometric expansion, how long before we reach the speed of light in relation to the rest of the universe?&nbsp; When we do does the expansion stabilize or do the immense forces involved actually change the laws of physics as we know them? (similar to the models of the big bang in the first few instants)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wow this stuff is certainly brain numbing. Expansion seems an overly complicated answer. <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;<font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#ff0000">Wow this stuff is certainly brain numbing. </font></p><p><font face="Calibri" size="3" color="#ff0000">Expansion seems an overly complicated answer.</font></p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">Hahaha, it is complicated and we make it complicated&nbsp; if we don't know what the heck is going on. All the theories I read thesedays about the universe, I take them as 'speculations'. Someday&nbsp; some of these speculations may turn out to be correct. But </font><font size="2">based on the current stage of our knowledge, IMHO, </font><font size="2">the 'correct' percentage may be&nbsp; low. </font></p><p><font size="2">BTW, you cannot have a surface without a center, extended, real,&nbsp; or non-physical, unless it's a flat surface. Note, an irregular surface can have more than one center, if we count centers for each piece of surface making up the entire surface. </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong>derekmcd,&nbsp; Your response brings some questions to mind.&nbsp; As I understand it recent evidence suggests that the expansion is increasing in velocity.</strong>&nbsp;</p><p>It is accelerating.&nbsp; This was discovered by studying type Ia supernovae.&nbsp; They found that they were dimmer than what their redshift suggested. </p><p><strong>Given an exponential increase in speed to accommodate the geometric expansion, how long before we reach the speed of light in relation to the rest of the universe?</strong>&nbsp;</p><p>Not quite clear what you are asking here.&nbsp; Using Ned Wright's calculator, at a redshift of ~1.3905, objects are currently receeding at the speed of light.&nbsp; It is theorized that, eventually, all galaxies/clusters outside our local area will fade into obscurity once they pass the cosmological horizon. </p><p><strong>When we do does the expansion stabilize or do the immense forces involved actually change the laws of physics as we know them? (similar to the models of the big bang in the first few instants)</strong> </p><p>Not sure what you mean by physical laws changing.&nbsp; The only thing that changes is our understanding of them.</p><p>Current models have the universe expanding forever.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>BTW, you cannot have a surface without a center, extended, real,&nbsp; or non-physical, unless it's a flat surface. Note, an irregular surface can have more than one center, if we count centers for each piece of surface making up the entire surface. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by emperor_of_localgroup</DIV></p><p>Huh?&nbsp; This makes no sense...</p><p>I challenge you to find the center point on the surface of any closed manifold. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given an exponential increase in speed to accommodate the geometric expansion, how long before we reach the speed of light in relation to the rest of the universe?&nbsp;Not quite clear what you are asking here.&nbsp; Using Ned Wright's calculator, at a redshift of ~1.3905, objects are currently receeding at the speed of light.&nbsp; It is theorized that, eventually, all galaxies/clusters outside our local area will fade into obscurity once they pass the cosmological horizon.</DIV></p><p>I might be misunderstanding your answer.&nbsp; Are you saying that we have already reached the speed of light in relation to other parts of the universe.&nbsp; If yes then how can we be accelerating past the universal speed limit.&nbsp; If no given current data on the acceleration and assuming that the acceleration is constant,&nbsp;how long before we reach velocity vectors that equal the speed of light.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When we do does the expansion stabilize or do the immense forces involved actually change the laws of physics as we know them? (similar to the models of the big bang in the first few instants) Not sure what you mean by physical laws changing.&nbsp; The only thing that changes is our understanding of them.Current models have the universe expanding forever. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />As I understand current theory the physical forces Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity were all part of the same force at the instant of the big bang and separated into individual forces at some time following the initial event.&nbsp; So lets say for purposes of argument that our universe exists within a 100% vacuum of infinite proportion to explain the acceleration and provide an infinite amount of energy to sustain it.&nbsp; Theoretically has anybody looked at the possibility of the current forces being subdivided further or changing in nature similar to what occurred at the beginning?</p><p>This is not my forte so I am just asking out of curiosity.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I might be misunderstanding your answer.&nbsp; Are you saying that we have already reached the speed of light in relation to other parts of the universe.&nbsp; If yes then how can we be accelerating past the universal speed limit.&nbsp; If no given current data on the acceleration and assuming that the acceleration is constant, how long before we reach velocity vectors that equal the speed of light. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br />It's the relative separation speed that's faster than light, between distant enough parts of the universe. &nbsp;Nothing's actualy moving across space faster than light. &nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's the relative separation speed that's faster than light, between distant enough parts of the universe. &nbsp;Nothing's actualy moving across space faster than light. &nbsp; <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV><br /><br />But isn't that one of the things that general relativity says can't happen? i.e. relative motion between two bodies cannot exceed C <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But isn't that one of the things that general relativity says can't happen? i.e. relative motion between two bodies cannot exceed C <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>It's a metric expansion of space.&nbsp; The objects are not physically moving through space.&nbsp; The coordinates within the spacetime manifold remain the same, but the distance between those two coordinates are increasing.&nbsp; There is no violation of Special Relativity, because the increase of distances are not due to inertial motion through space. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><strong>I might be misunderstanding your answer.&nbsp; Are you saying that we have already reached the speed of light in relation to other parts of the universe.&nbsp;</strong></p><p>Yes.&nbsp; That's what I'm saying.&nbsp; The hubble constant is about 71 km per second per megaparsec.&nbsp; Let's scale that down:</p><p>a-b-c-d</p><p>Each '-' equals 1 meter.&nbsp; Let expand:</p><p>a--b--c--d</p><p>From a to b you have added 1 meter within that 1 second, but from a to d, over that same second, you increased the distance by 3 meters.&nbsp; Extrapolate up to the Hubble Constant and cosmological distances, you get superluminal speeds.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>As I understand current theory the physical forces Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity were all part of the same force at the instant of the big bang and separated into individual forces at some time following the initial event.&nbsp; So lets say for purposes of argument that our universe exists within a 100% vacuum of infinite proportion to explain the acceleration and provide an infinite amount of energy to sustain it.&nbsp; Theoretically has anybody looked at the possibility of the current forces being subdivided further or changing in nature similar to what occurred at the beginning?This is not my forte so I am just asking out of curiosity. </strong></p><p>I'm not really clear on what you are asking here.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I might be misunderstanding your answer.&nbsp; Are you saying that we have already reached the speed of light in relation to other parts of the universe.&nbsp;Yes.&nbsp; That's what I'm saying.&nbsp; The hubble constant is about 71 km per second per megaparsec.&nbsp; Let's scale that down:a-b-c-dEach '-' equals 1 meter.&nbsp; Let expand:a--b--c--dFrom a to b you have added 1 meter within that 1 second, but from a to d, over that same second, you increased the distance by 3 meters.&nbsp; Extrapolate up to the Hubble Constant and cosmological distances, you get superluminal speeds.&nbsp;As I understand current theory the physical forces Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity were all part of the same force at the instant of the big bang and separated into individual forces at some time following the initial event.&nbsp; So lets say for purposes of argument that our universe exists within a 100% vacuum of infinite proportion to explain the acceleration and provide an infinite amount of energy to sustain it.&nbsp; Theoretically has anybody looked at the possibility of the current forces being subdivided further or changing in nature similar to what occurred at the beginning?This is not my forte so I am just asking out of curiosity. I'm not really clear on what you are asking here.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Ok I understand what you are saying about expansion being the cause of the phenomenom,&nbsp;but if points a through d represent the location of some mass then don't the masses represented by a and d have a relative velocity vector (i.e. they are moving at some speed and direction) in relation to each other that now exceeds C or does the expansion factor replace part of the relative velocity in this case.&nbsp; If yes have we developed a set of hypothesis or formula to account for the difference?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok I understand what you are saying about expansion being the cause of the phenomenom,&nbsp;but if points a through d represent the location of some mass then don't the masses represented by a and d have a relative velocity vector (i.e. they are moving at some speed and direction) in relation to each other that now exceeds C or does the expansion factor replace part of the relative velocity in this case.&nbsp; If yes have we developed a set of hypothesis or formula to account for the difference?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Galaxies within their own local group and cluster have velocities relative to each other that can be detected through doppler redshift, but at larger scales, the doppler redshift is statistically insignificant and completely overwhelmed by the cosmological redshift.&nbsp; We can even measure our motion relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation.&nbsp; These speeds pretty much remain constant unless there is some gravitational influences in the local area to change them.</p><p>Not really sure if I'm answering your question or not...&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Galaxies within their own local group and cluster have velocities relative to each other that can be detected through doppler redshift, but at larger scales, the doppler redshift is statistically insignificant and completely overwhelmed by the cosmological redshift.&nbsp; We can even measure our motion relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation.&nbsp; These speeds pretty much remain constant unless there is some gravitational influences in the local area to change them.Not really sure if I'm answering your question or not...&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Maybe we are talking about different thing.&nbsp; I am talking about the relative speeds of mass within the universe and I am&nbsp;thinking now&nbsp;that you are talking about space itself with no reference to mass.&nbsp; Yes? No? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>