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
#1,922
A new view?

Emergent de Sitter Cosmology from Decaying Anti–de Sitter Space
Souvik Banerjee, Ulf Danielsson, Giuseppe Dibitetto, Suvendu Giri, and Marjorie Schillo
Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 261301 – Published 27 December 2018

https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261301

klotete.jpg


//
 
Last edited:
#1,923
kevinahcc20 said:
Not since 1998...the expansion is accelerating under the apparent effects of dark energy. It is very difficult to reconcile an expansion that has accelerated for some 5 billion years with a future contraction as the sum of all of the gravitiational energy opposing the expansion lost out to the pressure of dark energy then.
Click to expand...

Has anyone measured dark energy, to discovery what it dissipates into? Maybe it becomes positive energy, coalesces into positive matter, and reins in the expansion back towards a Big Crunch. I'll call it the dissipation factor, and allow anyone to plug it into their calculations as often they choose, as the dt(s).
 
Last edited:
#1,926
The new theory above says that our universe with its 4 dimensions is expanding in a 5th dimension that is the dark energy. Other universes do also expand in the same and one 5th dimension and therefore they can collide which would mean a certain end to the involved parties.

//
 
#1,930
So how does your personal version of cosmology reconcile all of the evidence (Big Bang cosmic background radiation, redshifts that increase with distance, gravitational lensing, etc. etc.) into a coherent picture that fits? Or do you think the evidence is faked? Do you reject general relativity? How about Newtonian physics? These aren't topics where belief plays a significant role...your model either fits the available data better than the next model, or it doesn't.
 
#1,931
:umbrella:Hi, Physics is Sciance. The 'big bang' aside from sounding american is a Theory. In theorys people make things fit. Not to say the backgroud radiation is present because it is.


I wouldnt say it was my 'personal view' on 'cosmology' at all. I am saying the 'big bang is a joke. The universe is infinate and infinate can expand within its infinity. radiation is part of dieing stars. etc.


you wait, in 30 years time the 'big bang theory' will be long flushed down the toilet and remembered only as a rediculus load of rubbish.


'BIG BANG' hahahaha
 
#1,932
Theories run the gamut from highly speculative (our Universe has a twin expanding backward in time) to solid as the Rock of Gibraltar (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). The origin of the Big Bang concept is now 92 years old and the theory is by far the best fit to explain a wide range of cosmological observations. It may sound American to you but the idea that the expansion of spacetime could be traced backwards to a starting point originated with a Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre. I am unaware that there is any credible alternative theory that fits the data at all well. Your model of the Universe as a static and infinite rigid backdrop went out with Einstein's General Relativity over 100 years ago and it isn't coming back, although perhaps you believe Einstein was also mistaken? I may not make 30 years as I'm 66 now but I'm confident that 100 years from now the Big Bang theory, undoubtedly refined and enhanced will still stand.
 
#1,936
I already told you:
Your question is wrong.
It's not 100% accurate to say equations that apply to one observable scale apply to a larger or smaller scale(s) that cannot be measured.
This is why you have theories like: "negative energy", "dark matter", "white holes", singularities, "big bang" that cannot be directly/accurately observed.

You do not know for sure how light behaves over lightyears and/or whether it's energy is 100% conserved over these distances. Furthermore you do not know the nature of space-time continuum over these distances. You just won't convince any one with a brain that you do know.

Yes, 90% of the matter in a galaxy might be dark or your equations over these distances are incorrect. Guess what's easier: creating a new mathematical equation or saying that 90% is dark matter?

Things that are further away are expanding at a faster rate; must be negative energy because the silliness of the big bang still doesn't quite explain it. How much further are you going to go with this?

History has proven that physics equations scale to a certain point, until they don't.

They work within confined ranges of all specified (or unspecified, I should say, it's almost like a religion) variables.

There is also evidence that a lot of what scientists call "constants" aren't constant at all and change over time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom