What is the Universe expanding into..

Do you think there was anything before the big bang?

  • I don't think there was anything before the Big Bang

    Votes: 56 12.5%

  • I think something existed before the Big Bang

    Votes: 200 44.7%

  • I don't think the big bang happened

    Votes: 54 12.1%

  • I think the universe is part of a mutiverse

    Votes: 201 45.0%
  • Total voters
    447
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#486
I'm lost! ...In the deep space of the universe...

* Fontaines de stupidité

But I won't let that detract me from my trajectory (universe's x-pansion discussion among my peers).
Scientists and physicists and astronomers and theorists and philosopher stones and artists and musicians and audio designers, ...all have a say on reality.
 
Last edited:
#489
#492
SY said:
Certainly Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's gravitation "phonebook" was some tough work for me as an undergrad.
Click to expand...

Then you don't know true suffering

S.W. Hawking, G.F.R. Ellis – The large scale structure of space-time

Not a "phonebook" but a "brick-book", a true torture instrument, although difficult to believe, the same author has written a charming book, easy to read, and it can help to answer the original question of this thread

S.W. Hawking - A Brief History of Time
 
Last edited:
#493
esgigt said:
please take the trouble to rethink your statement.. the expanding universe is not the only reason for red-shift. Mass (gravitational pull) influences the propagation of light. Accurate laser-measurements indicated that passing a large mass slows them down a bit. We've moved on since Einstein..
Click to expand...

Can you point me to a paper where this is reported?

Do you remember the CERN experiment from a few years ago, where they measured speed of light was not what it was supposed to be? It was off by a minute amount and it created a furore in the scientific world, and in the press. After some investigation, the problem was measurement error.

Here is the wiki entry for c. In a vacuum its constant.

Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if if were not so, it's not just Einstein that would be wrong about a whole lot of things. Throw out Michaelson-Morely, Maxwell, Planck, Heisenberg, Heavyside, and more recently people like Hawking et al.

You can't claim the properties around a fundamental physical constant like c are wrong without some pretty heavy proof. You will have to make a career out of it I am afraid.
 
Last edited:
#497
Bonsai said:
Do you remember the CERN experiment from a few years ago, where they measured speed of light was not what it was supposed to be? It was off by a minute amount and it created a furore in the scientific world, and in the press. After some investigation, the problem was measurement error.
Click to expand...

I think you refer to an experiment with neutrinos, first results announced superluminal neutrinos, i.e. v > c, but was a bad optic fibre connector.

Bonsai said:
And if if were not so, it's not just Einstein that would be wrong about a whole lot of things. Throw out Michaelson-Morely, Maxwell, Planck, Heisenberg, Heavyside, and more recently people like Hawking et al.
Click to expand...

Well, don't worry, if someday would result that c it is not constant, it shouldn't be the end of physics, just some changes.

Think in a western movie, Einstein is at the saloon, and bad guys enter every day to challenge him, so far nobody could with him…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom