The universe 'will expand forever', new Nasa study on 'dark energy' concludes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremia

If we don't understand the beginning how can we understand the end? And if we continue to see things as only having a start and finish then we will never see the truth. Quote; Jeremia after 2 bottles of wine..

---

There's a new theory of the universe where time can be converted into mass and length - this model works without any big bang. There's also no beginning, and no end.

That's why I prefer it. The whole big bang thing is, frankly, just dumb. Does it make sense? No. So why should we have our best physicists working on "making it work anyway"? A waste of time, and I conclude with an Einstein quote: Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Details here: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

This new model is not fleshed out in the full, there are many things that don't work. But the same is true for the big bang theory. In any case, until a better model comes along, this one's good to me.

The Universe within 14 billion Light Years - The Visible Universe

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2010/08/812.jpg

The Universe within 14 billion Light Years


The Visible Universe

The known universe....

Well worth the 6 minutes of your time. Avoid taking LSD prior to watching this...

Or take LSD for the full on 'out there' moment.

YouTube - The Known Universe by AMNH

How large is the universe....

Looks at inflation, the big bang and dark matter/energy. Again a good view.

Those prone to headaches should avoid....

YouTube - How Large is the Universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikster

There's a new theory of the universe where time can be converted into mass and length - this model works without any big bang. There's also no beginning, and no end. That's why I prefer it. The whole big bang thing is, frankly, just dumb.

---

Interesting and at least not for me immediately recognizable nonsense.
You say you have problems with the Big Bang. I can live with it. But I have problems with the Dark Energy. So I like every new theory that makes it unnecessary. Let us wait and see.

^ this will upset you then...

Astronomers use galactic magnifying lens to probe elusive dark energy

Astronomers Use Galactic Magnifying Lens to Probe Elusive Dark Energy

ScienceDaily (Aug. 19, 2010) — An international team of astronomers using gravitational lensing observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has taken an important step forward in the quest to solve the riddle of dark energy, a phenomenon which mysteriously appears to power the Universe's accelerating expansion

Their results appear in the 20 August 2010 issue of the journal Science.

Normal matter like that found in stars, planets and dust clouds only makes up a tiny fraction of the mass-energy content of the Universe. It is dwarfed by the amount of dark matter -- which is invisible, but can be detected by its gravitational pull. In turn, the amount of dark matter in the Universe is itself overwhelmed by the diffuse dark energy that permeates the entire Universe. Scientists believe that the pressure exerted by this dark energy is what pushes the Universe to expand at an ever-increasing rate.

Probing the nature of dark energy is, therefore, one of the key challenges in modern cosmology. Since its discovery in 1998, the quest has been to characterise and understand it better. This work presents an entirely new way to do so.

Eric Jullo, lead author of a new paper in the journal Science explains: "Dark energy is characterised by the relationship between its pressure and its density: this is known as its equation of state. Our goal was to try to quantify this relationship. It teaches us about the properties of dark energy and how it has affected the development of the Universe."

The team measured the properties of the gravitational lensing in the galaxy cluster Abell 1689. Gravitational lensing is a phenomenon predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity, and was here used by the team to probe how the cosmological distances (and thus the shape of space-time) are modified by dark energy. At cosmic distances, a huge cluster of galaxies in the foreground has so much mass that its gravitational pull bends beams of light from very distant galaxies, producing distorted images of the faraway objects. The distortion induced by the lens depends in part on the distances to the objects, which have been precisely measured with large ground-based telescopes such as ESO's Very Large Telescope and the Keck Telescopes.

"The precise effects of lensing depend on the mass of the lens, the structure of space-time, and the relative distance between us, the lens and the distant object behind it," explains Priyamvada Natarajan, a co-author of the paper. "It's like a magnifying glass, where the image you get depends on the shape of the lens and how far you hold it from the object you're looking at. If you know the shape of the lens and the image you get, you can work out the path that light followed between the object and your eye."

Looking at the distorted images allows astronomers to reconstruct the path that light from distant galaxies takes to make its long journey to Earth. It also lets them study the effect of dark energy on the geometry of space in the light path from the distant objects to the lensing cluster and then from the cluster to us. As dark energy pushes the Universe to expand ever faster, the precise path that the light beams follow as they travel through space and are bent by the lens is subtly altered. This means that the distorted images from the lens encapsulate information about the underlying cosmology, as well as about the lens itself.

So why is the geometry of the Universe such a big issue?

"The geometry, the content and the fate of the Universe are all intricately linked," says Natarajan. "If you know two, you can deduce the third. We already have a pretty good knowledge of the Universe's mass-energy content, so if we can get a handle on its geometry then we will be able to work out exactly what the fate of the Universe will be."

The real strength of this new result is that it devises a totally new way to extract information about the elusive dark energy. It is a unique and powerful one, and offers great promise for future applications.

According to the scientists, their method required multiple, meticulous steps to develop. They spent several years developing specialised mathematical models and precise maps of the matter -- both dark and "normal" -- that together constitute the Abell 1689 cluster.

Co-author Jean-Paul Kneib explains: "Using our unique method in conjunction with others, we were able to come up with results that were far more precise than any achieved before."

The Hubble Space Telescope is a project of international cooperation between ESA and NASA.

The international team of astronomers in this study consists of Eric Jullo (Jet Propulsion Laboratory/ Cal Tech, USA and Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, France), Priyamvada Natarajan (Yale University, USA), Jean-Paul Kneib (Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, France), Anson D'Aloisio (Yale University, USA), Marceau Limousin (Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, France and University of Copenhagen, Denmark), Johan Richard (Durham University, UK) and Carlo Schimd (Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, France)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikster

There's a new theory of the universe where time can be converted into mass and length - this model works without any big bang. There's also no beginning, and no end. That's why I prefer it. The whole big bang thing is, frankly, just dumb.

---

Interesting and at least not for me immediately recognizable nonsense.
You say you have problems with the Big Bang. I can live with it. But I have problems with the Dark Energy. So I like every new theory that makes it unnecessary. Let us wait and see.

---

Every time if hear the words I am reminded of 'the ether' the medium though which victorians thought that electromagnetic waves must travel, on the basis that their knowledge of sound waves told them that waves need a medium to travel through. I know they have found it via cosmological observations, but I would be so much happier if they found in the lab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandajoy

any statement including the words

forever

and

infinity / infinite

are essentially flawed and meaningless.

---

Actually one of the more important mathematical discoveries of modern times is that there are many infinities and that mathematical operations on infinity are meaningful, i.e infinity +1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ this will upset you then...

---

:)

I have read about it already. The evidence for Dark Energy is strong with the current cosmologic theories wether I like it or not. Not saying that I understand the math behind them.

And it would take something very new and very convincing to replace them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremia

If we don't understand the beginning how can we understand the end? And if we continue to see things as only having a start and finish then we will never see the truth. Quote; Jeremia after 2 bottles of wine..

---

There's a new theory of the universe where time can be converted into mass and length - this model works without any big bang. There's also no beginning, and no end.

That's why I prefer it. The whole big bang thing is, frankly, just dumb. Does it make sense? No. So why should we have our best physicists working on "making it work anyway"? A waste of time, and I conclude with an Einstein quote: Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Details here: Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end

This new model is not fleshed out in the full, there are many things that don't work. But the same is true for the big bang theory. In any case, until a better model comes along, this one's good to me.

---

I prefer the big bang. Quite aside from the evidence, as far as that can go with current understanding, it provides for a logical beginning and a logical end.

The only alternative that offers a plausible though absurd beginning are the god, or so called intelligent design theories. For starters, consider the intelligence of an infinite power and wisdom stranded in nothingness for an absolute eternity. Not very bright at all. Then suddenly it is struck by first the concept and then the thought to create a universe. And anyway, those thoughts could not have originated without at least a spark of energy, which could not have existed in nothingness.

As to the end, in terms of god theory, a bit implausible that having taken the trouble to create an entire universe, which has to be perfect since otherwise god is imperfect, that there's any point in ending it. Unless the infinite wisdom has second thoughts and decides to restore its previous status of being suspended in emptiness.

So it's the big bang for me, and anyway the big bang theory is a brilliant series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandajoy

any statement including the words

forever

and

infinity / infinite

are essentially flawed and meaningless.

---

Actually one of the more important mathematical discoveries of modern times is that there are many infinities and that mathematical operations on infinity are meaningful, i.e infinity +1

---

A Maserati could never mathematically overtake a moving tricycle that starts out in front. In real life it could, which proves only that maths is not perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonraker

That also leads to.....

What is nothing? How can we define nothing?

A vacuum isn't nothing, it has a name and is a recognisable entity. A vacuum isn't nothing, it is something. Just a something that is empty.

Before the big bang there was nothing, not even time. How is that possible? If there was no time then how could there have been a 'before'? So if there was no before the big bang then.....

---

Absolutely. I think the entire "big bang" explanation is far too similar to "GOD" creating the universe.

So, what if there newer was a beginning and there will never be an end? How about there being no edges to the universe, it has limitless size? How about our small part of the universe is expanding as other parts are contracting, but in millions of years from now our part will contract as other parts expand?

Time, space, the universe, etc. etc never had a beginning and will never have an end.

If God, created it, or if something exploded, where did god come from? Where did the matter that exploded come from?

Even the concept that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is on shaky ground now.

My theory is that a giant rabbit named "Harvey" created the universe but since it is invisible and keeps hopping about we will never find it..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonraker

That also leads to.....

What is nothing? How can we define nothing?

A vacuum isn't nothing, it has a name and is a recognisable entity. A vacuum isn't nothing, it is something. Just a something that is empty.

Before the big bang there was nothing, not even time. How is that possible? If there was no time then how could there have been a 'before'? So if there was no before the big bang then.....

---

Absolutely. I think the entire "big bang" explanation is far too similar to "GOD" creating the universe.

So, what if there newer was a beginning and there will never be an end? How about there being no edges to the universe, it has limitless size? How about our small part of the universe is expanding as other parts are contracting, but in millions of years from now our part will contract as other parts expand?

Time, space, the universe, etc. etc never had a beginning and will never have an end.

If God, created it, or if something exploded, where did god come from? Where did the matter that exploded come from?

Even the concept that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is on shaky ground now.

My theory is that a giant rabbit named "Harvey" created the universe but since it is invisible and keeps hopping about we will never find it..

---

Not sure about Harvey, But...

A vacuum is not empty, its bussing away at the subatomic level with vacuum fluctuations causing particles to appear bang out of thin air for a short while before disappearing in a puff.

evidence of the existence of black holes.:sexy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

Time, space, the universe, etc. etc never had a beginning and will never have an end.

---

All the evidence at this point indicates it is endless but finite in size and shape. Unclear are start and end. The Dark Energy suggests it will keep expanding forever and will therefore exist forever. For me that is sad and scary. Eternity as a dark and cold vast void, that is why I don't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

My theory is that a giant rabbit named "Harvey" created the universe but since it is invisible and keeps hopping about we will never find it..

---

Scientifically that would be a hypothesis. A theory needs supporting evidence.:mid:

The universe may be infinite but our sun is not. Eventually it will burn itself out and earth with it. The universe is only a matter of perception. Without sentient beings as observers there is no perception. Will there be any trace of us left when the sun is spent? Without observers does the universe really exist anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humbert

The universe may be infinite but our sun is not. Eventually it will burn itself out and earth with it.

---

The end of the sun would not necessarily be the end of humanity or even of the earth.

We could chose to leave earth or we could move the earth out far enough that it can survive the end of the sun.

That would be possible with present technology. It would only require a major effort of the united human race over a few hundred million years. And we have still plenty of time to do that. So it should not be too difficult!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandajoy

any statement including the words

forever

and

infinity / infinite

are essentially flawed and meaningless.

---

Actually one of the more important mathematical discoveries of modern times is that there are many infinities and that mathematical operations on infinity are meaningful, i.e infinity +1

---

A Maserati could never mathematically overtake a moving tricycle that starts out in front. In real life it could, which proves only that maths is not perfect.

---

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrontiumDog

^ this will upset you then...

---

:)

I have read about it already. The evidence for Dark Energy is strong with the current cosmologic theories wether I like it or not. Not saying that I understand the math behind them.

And it would take something very new and very convincing to replace them.

---

The problem is that we have observations that disagreed with the theoretical understanding of the universe. dark energy/matter have been added as concepts to these theories to help observation and theory agree. What is missing at the moment is experimental understanding of what dark matter/energy is.

The victorians never found 'the ether' that electromagnetic waves travel through because its was eventually discovered that 'the ether' did not exist and their understanding of how the universe works was wrong. Without experimental evidence dark energy/matter it could be our modern day 'the ether'; which is why so much effort is being put into finding it as either way the results are very very important.

With the exponential growth in technology, its likely that we will end up colonizing other planets before the sun goes down forever in a blaze of glory and ending up as a frozen white dwarf. The big problem of course being the vast distances and associated problems of a propulsion system and the limitations of the speed of light being max velocity. Still civilization came from the stone age to the space age in just 10,000 years, so we still have plenty of time to figure it all out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazz

The problem is that we have observations that disagreed with the theoretical understanding of the universe. dark energy/matter have been added as concepts to these theories to help observation and theory agree. What is missing at the moment is experimental understanding of what dark matter/energy is. The victorians never found 'the ether' that electromagnetic waves travel through because its was eventually discovered that 'the ether' did not exist and their understanding of how the universe works was wrong. Without experimental evidence dark energy/matter it could be our modern day 'the ether'; which is why so much effort is being put into finding it as either way the results are very very important.

---

Agree completely. That is why I would like this new theory to succeed.

Maybe we can explain Dark Matter. But with Dark Energy we have a total blank so far.
Attempts to explain observations without Dark Energy have failed.

There has got to be something wrong when we have to invent things that are intangible and can not be proven, like dark matter and dark energy to explain our current understanding of the way things work. Its not like the scientists have any evidence of its existence, its just that they needed to invent something to fill in the gaps in current theories.

I just hope they figure it out before I die as I want to know the answer.:)

Ok, here's a concept from an amateur.

The known universe is just jam packed with all kinds of radiation from Xrays to Gamma rays to microwaves to all the spectrum of visible light. All those energy sources are pushing on each-other to get elbow room to keep expanding at the speed of light. Some of them get sucked into black holes and get turned back into matter (though an infinitely small point of matter) where their expansive force is now inverted into a contracting force called gravity. Remember that all forms of electromagnetic radiation and matter are interchangeable given the right circumstances as proven in the first Atomic bombs.

So matter is made up of nothing more than little balls of light rolled up and turned inwards so that they now become confined to one point in space and their expansive force also becomes reversed and is expressed as an attractive force of gravity.

We know that visible light and other forms of EM radiation are bent and influenced by the mass created gravity. We also know that light (and other EM radiation has an "impact" on mass, -- a bit like you or me being hit by a puff of wind in a gentle breeze, but an impact all the same, especially if it becomes a hurricane.

Could it be that our scientists have underestimated this expansive force that EM radiation plays in the observed expansion of our universe?
One of the ideas put forward for future space exploration is the use of solar sails.
Big thin membranes that would capture the impact of sub atomic particles and EM radiation like light itself to drive the spaceship at an ever increasing rate of acceleration culminating to a speed close to the speed of light. But the forces on the sails would be so weak that it would take many tens of thousands of years to get anywhere near light speed.

Still, if the expansive force of EM energy can propel a hypothetical spaceship to accelerate at close to the speed of light, why then couldn't the same forces be driving the expansion of the universes given that it has had 13 billion years to get things moving?

Its just an idea, the hypothesis of an amateur, but why not just as believable as some of the other theories without any proof?

Or, to put it another way, nothing matters very much and very little matters at all............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda

Could it be that our scientists have underestimated this expansive force that EM radiation plays in the observed expansion of our universe? One of the ideas put forward for future space exploration is the use of solar sails. Big thin membranes that would capture the impact of sub atomic particles and EM radiation like light itself to drive the spaceship at an ever increasing rate of acceleration culminating to a speed close to the speed of light. But the forces on the sails would be so weak that it would take many tens of thousands of years to get anywhere near light speed. Still, if the expansive force of EM energy can propel a hypothetical spaceship to accelerate at close to the speed of light, why then couldn't the same forces be driving the expansion of the universes given that it has had 13 billion years to get things moving? Its just an idea, the hypothesis of an amateur, but why not just as believable as some of the other theories without any proof?

---

Interesting idea, i must say.

But first I believe it quite unlikely this force has been forgotten.

Second if it had been forgotten, immediately after discovering the accelerated expansion of the universe, somebody would have hit his forehead with his hand and started calculating that force. After all the information to do it is there.

Third this radiation comes pretty much evenly from anywhere so forces probably would cancel out.

But this light force is interesting anyway. Ever had a light mill? I had one in my window until my wife decided it needed cleaning.

YouTube - Psi wheel test with Crookes radiometer (light mill)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda

There has got to be something wrong when we have to invent things that are intangible and can not be proven, like dark matter and dark energy to explain our current understanding of the way things work. Its not like the scientists have any evidence of its existence, its just that they needed to invent something to fill in the gaps in current theories.

I just hope they figure it out before I die as I want to know the answer.:)

---

This is how science works. you look for gaps between theory and observation, you postulate new theories or upgrade new theories that fill those gaps. You then use these new/improved theories to make predictions about unknown effects that can be measured and experimentalists look for these effects and if they find them you might win a noble prize (: dark energy/matter probably do exist and the scientists should find out what they are within the decade, but if they don't find them then thats more interesting as it would indicate that theres a really big gap in our understanding on the universe.

What you say about dark matter is also true for quantum mechanics because despite its huge success in explaining how the small works, its still an abstract mathematical struct. There's a nice artical about people are are looking into the reality that is behind QM is new scientist, available here are a few weeks before its paywalled Is quantum theory weird enough for the real world?

The radius is from the centre to the furthest point of a circle

Bogon, Could you please draw this circle for me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jandajoy

any statement including the words

forever

and

infinity / infinite

are essentially flawed and meaningless.

---

Actually one of the more important mathematical discoveries of modern times is that there are many infinities and that mathematical operations on infinity are meaningful, i.e infinity +1

---

A Maserati could never mathematically overtake a moving tricycle that starts out in front. In real life it could, which proves only that maths is not perfect.

---

:confused:

---

I'm guessing Zeno's paradox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Interesting idea, i must say.

But first I believe it quite unlikely this force has been forgotten.

Second if it had been forgotten, immediately after discovering the accelerated expansion of the universe, somebody would have hit his forehead with his hand and started calculating that force. After all the information to do it is there.

Third this radiation comes pretty much evenly from anywhere so forces probably would cancel out.

---

I do agree with you on points one and two that the scientists have the info and should have figured it out by now if EM radiation exerted enough pressure over time to be forcing the universe apart.

However, remember that according to the Big Bang theory there was an explosive force that caused matter to expand at a set velocity. But now they are finding that the most distant objects are actually not just moving away at a set velocity but appear to be accelerating away at an ever increasing speed.
As the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between objects (the universal inverse square law), it stands to reason that mass on the outer limits of the known universe would be less likely to be slowed down by the inward pull of gravity which is much more prevalent in more densely populated areas of the inner layers of our known universe. Therefore, the further out you go the faster the mass seems to be expanding as measured by the Doppler effect AKA the "red shift". Are those objects really accelerating away from the center of the Big Bang, or is it just an assumption we make based on the greater velocity of the more distant objects which are less inclined to be slowed down by the gravity closer to the core? Just because more distant objects are travelling faster than closer objects doesnt mean those closer objects are going to speed up as they get further out. Could be they are simply retaining much of their original velocity because of reduced drag from gravity.

But even if this mass on the outer edges of the known universe was simply sailing away at its original velocity free of gravitational drag back near the inner core, there would still be some degree of expansive force exerted on its mass by EM radiation. Assuming of course that EM radiation and matter first appeared out of the Big Bang at around the same time.

According to Einstein's theories and conventional knowledge light and other EM forms of radiation travels at the speed of light in a vacuum (186,000 MPS) and it travels as both particles and waves. Something I have trouble getting my head around. But anyway, we know that light has some similar properties to matter. It is attracted by gravity and it exerts a force when it is taken up by matter. We also know that light (all EM radiation) and matter are interchangeable given the right circumstances such as in an Atomic bomb (E= MC squared). But light behaves very differently to matter. It does not exert a gravitational force on itself. Quite the reverse, it must zoom off at the speed of light velocity until it meets some matter that absorbs it and converts it to something else like a higher electron orbit or a vibrating atom/molecule in the form of heat.

Em radiation might yet be discovered to be the source of dark matter and dark energy.

Ok. Here's some more from an amateur scientist (:)). Food for thought and discussion anyway.

Light and other forms of EM radiation and matter are just different forms of the same stuff. We know that light and matter can be converted to the other, but they both have very different properties. I think of light and EM radiation as very thinly disbursed matter with an inverse force to gravity. Sort of as matter unravelled and let fly into space. Or conversely, matter as little bundles of EM energy rolled up into little balls, all be it with some opposite and reciprocal properties.

Consider that light has the inherent property of getting out there and wanting to go, expanding forever at the speed of light. We know that visible light is created when electrons jump from a higher energised orbit to a lower stable orbit, and we know that some of the more exotic forms of electromagnetic radiation are created when atoms are smashed together, destroying some of their mass.

So once these bits of mass are converted to EM radiation are liberated and set free into space, what happens to them? Do they just whiz around till they get sucked up and absorbed by physical matter without much consequence in the greater scheme of things, or does this abundance of thin diffuse matter/antimatter play a role in the behaviour of the physical mass in our universe.

Even the most perfect Laser could not create a parallel beam of light. Light exerts a force on itself the opposite of gravity which forces its shoulders apart the further it travels. It dissipates like a wave on the ocean. Thats the wave part of light. But it doesnt necessarily follow the inverse square law of the square root of the force/strength as the distance from the source doubles. I guess thats where the particle bit of photons comes in. Still, light and all other forms of EM energy exert a force on themselves the exact opposite of gravity. We got a universe chock a block full of all kinds of EM energy radiating out there that are pushing and squeezing against each other for elbow room in crowded space.

Here's a simple experiment to show what I mean. Magnetism is a part of EM radiation which differs from the properties of mass and gravity. Put a magnet under a piece of paper and sprinkle some iron filings on the paper. You will see the lines of magnetism appear in a perfect arc. Now put a like magnetic pole magnet next to the first magnet and you will see that the the lines of magnetism can not occupy the same space and are squeezing on each other being forced out wider into the surrounding space. Its much the same with light and other EM energy that fills the universe. All pushing on each other to get some elbow room.

Now if the speed of light in space is absolute, that means that all the different sources and wavelengths are pushing and shoving on each other, (well those that dont get sucked up by matter anyway) in a big mix like a pool of oil and water with each wavelength and source pushing its own way through the matrix. Not in a straight line, but in a very convoluted manner which may give us here on earth a distorted picture of the shape of the heavens.

Its not inconceivable that in such a picture some light and other EM energy might get trapped in an inward spiral confined in one point of space. And hey, you know what that means? Matter is created out of thin space. Well not really, more a case of the reconversion of EM radiation into matter.

[at]Panda

First let me say I appreciate the effort to think things through on your own. More people should try that. It is good for the brain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda

it stands to reason that mass on the outer limits of the known universe would be less likely to be slowed down by the inward pull of gravity which is much more prevalent in more densely populated areas of the inner layers of our known universe.

---

You have a very common misconception about the nature of the universe. It does not have a center and outer limits.

A good model to understand the nature of the universe is a balloons rubber skin. That skin is the 2-dimensional equivalent of our universe. No part of that skin is the center. If you blow up the balloon all parts of that skin grow apart from each other. The same happens with all parts of the universe which is the 3-dimensional equivalent of that balloons skin.

Follow a straight line on the balloons skin and you will eventually get back to the starting point. The same with our universe. Follow a straight line with your ultra speed spaceship and eventually you will be back home.

Or as some astronomer put it. Look through your immensely powerful telescope long enough and with sufficient amplification and you will eventually see a shiny white object provided you are bald. :)

And because of this there would not be an area outside where the pressure of light will be less but on a sufficiently large scale that pressure will be equal from all directions and cancel the effect out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda

and it travels as both particles and waves. Something I have trouble getting my head around.

---

You are not alone there.:)

And it gets worse. The Uncertainty Principle was even initially rejected by Einstein because he could not get his head around to it.

"You have a very common misconception about the nature of the universe. It does not have a center and outer limits"

Well, thats one point I disagree on. If the universe began at a finite point in a Big Bang and is expanding away from that point, then it most certainly does have a central point and outer limits.
You have a very common misconception about the nature of the universe. It does not have a center and outer limits.


"A good model to understand the nature of the universe is a balloons rubber skin. That skin is the 2-dimensional equivalent of our universe. No part of that skin is the center. If you blow up the balloon all parts of that skin grow apart from each other. The same happens with all parts of the universe which is the 3-dimensional equivalent of that balloons skin.

Follow a straight line on the balloons skin and you will eventually get back to the starting point. The same with our universe. Follow a straight line with your ultra speed spaceship and eventually you will be back home."

Here again I disagree. Why is it that we must think of the known universe as a big self-contained egg, or balloon as you describe it with nothing being able to go outside its outer perimeter? Its a bit like the flat earth concept to my way of thinking. And of course if the universe is infinitely expanding, how come when it hits this two dimensional outer balloon skin it doesnt come back and hit us in the head? Its very convenient to consider the outer edge of the universe as two dimensional where things just keep going round and round, but the fact is that space and the matter in it, including EM radiation, is three dimensional with length breadth and width. Why cant matter and EM radiation like light keep expanding out into the great nothingness of true space forever without having to bump into this theoretical outer two dimensional "balloon skin" and be re-routed back into the "big egg universe" ? It does sound like a modern day version of the flat earth theory where if you go over the horizon you fall off the edge of the earth, only in this one you end up going inside a big sphere where you end up back where you started from.

Try to read again what I wrote. Not the balloon, the ballon surface is the 2-dimensional model that we can understand and it does not have a center. The universe is the 3-dimensional equivalent and it also does not have a center to expand from.

Will leave you with it there Takeovers as it doesnt seem to make any sense to me . Perhaps I am just stupid or perhaps you could be smarter in a two dimensional membrane? :)

Anyway, here's another thought to ponder. --

I dont reckon space is curved or distorted by mass at all. I believe that the things in space (including light) get moved around and bent off their original paths by the effects of gravity. This gives the impression of space bending or curving to accommodate the curved path of things that are supposed to travel in a straight line such as light. I dont believe that true space is anything you can bend or modify since it doesnt exist in the first place and can only be measured by matter or EM radiation like light in it.

Which brings us to the measurement of time. In true space there is no time because there is nothing in it to change. And change is the only way we can measure time.

We know for sure that objects travelling at different speeds in space have a different measure of time. The world GPS system has to compensate for this as time is slightly slower up there in orbit for the satellites than it is down here on earth. Sounds amazing, but definitely true if you want to do a simple Google to verify it. Einstein figured quite accurately that this differential was as a result of space warping and bending light so that it could continue to travel at its free speed of 186,000 miles per second. But if light and other EM energy can be pulled off course by gravity, why then cant it be slowed down by gravity? And if the speed of light can be slowed down by gravity then time within that channel of light would appear to to slow down too.

Consider that our near universe is just jam packed with EM radiant energy including radiant light pushing shoulder to shoulder and exerting an expansive force on each-other in order to keep expanding. You end up with all these different wavelengths pushing on each-other in their effort to keep expanding at their pre set velocity of light. Its only natural that thers going to be some friction and the slowing down of their passage through space. But if the speed of light is absolute and unchangeable, how then could this be so? The only other variable in the equation is time. If time slows down then light can still maintain its constant velocity of 186,000 miles per second. Perhaps the reason why when objects such as satellites are sent up there into the matrix of space they come back younger than expected, even if its just by milliseconds.

Second theory on this time differential is that things going a different route in space push through different corridors of different EM radiation with different speeds and therefore different perceptions of time. For example, light from the sun is the overwhelming EM bathing the earth, so the light being bounced around is pretty constant in its speed, manly due to the earths atmosphere shielding us from most other radiation. But once you get out into space you get an more convoluted matrix of different wavelengths from different directions. Maybe not much of a difference, but enough to make a few milliseconds difference in time for a satellite orbiting the earth.

Consider a satellite orbiting the earth as a boat ploughing through the ocean.
If the tides and currents it pushes against are exactly the same as in its port of origin, then its time of return can be exactly plotted if its exact velocity is known.
We know the exact velocity of orbiting satellites and we know the exact moment of their return (if thats the objective), yet when we get them back they come back younger in time than expected according to atomic clock experiments that can measure milliseconds. So, yes, it has been proven that time travel into the future is possible.

These satellites travelling around orbit of earth travel in a pretty circular orbit around the earth. They cut through all the contortions of light and other forms of EM energy bathing the earth since the impact of these outside forces are extremely weak.These satellites have their own velocity relative to the great EM matrix of space and also relative to those of us on earth. So, when we get them back we find that time has run a little bit slower for them than it has for us here on earth.

To take it a step further, one could postulate that time runs slower in the more densely packed areas of the universe where EM radiation is most intense, and inversely, time runs faster or at least up to standard light speed equilibrium in those outer areas where EM radiation is more diffuse. Another possible explanation why the outer mas of the visible universe appears to accelerating away.

NASA knowledge only has value to humans. Yippie! All of our existence, possibilities, and the rest of it amount to the dot on an i among all writings ever created by man. Our value is .