I spent some more time on these mysteries.
Dr Becky Smethurst is rather good at explaining things:
An Astrophysicist's Top 10 Unsolved Mysteries - YouTube
And another mystery solved:
If the Universe is expanding, where is the centre? - YouTube
I think I get it. It's Space itself that is expanding. And it looks like the centre wherever you happen to be. 😎
Dr Becky Smethurst is rather good at explaining things:
An Astrophysicist's Top 10 Unsolved Mysteries - YouTube
And another mystery solved:
If the Universe is expanding, where is the centre? - YouTube
I think I get it. It's Space itself that is expanding. And it looks like the centre wherever you happen to be. 😎
Yes but even so, there has to be a stationary point that has never moved regardless. No?
I am rather like Dr Becky Smethurst of Oxford Uni. It amazes me that Physicists can be so Bright and Interesting... 🙂
If the Universe is expanding, where is the centre? - YouTube
Discopete, you are thinking about a 2-sphere embedded in 3-Space. This is wrong. We are on the inside of this sphere. We cannot observe from the outside.
Every point and time in the Universe is as good as any other. There is no observable centre. And all is about what we can observe. Even if the reality is different and maybe ultimately unknowable.
Wherever you are, at any point in time, you see a Cosmic Microwave Background and some Galaxies. Back in the Early days it was hotter. Distances were smaller. But is any point more central than any other? NO. Wherever you happen to be, that is the centre.
So the centre is a diffuse concept. Is the centre of the Earth (er...) 4,000 miles down? Or is it spread all over the surface? The singularity has expanded from a point to the entire surface.
I am informed that though the Universe is 13.7Bn years old, it is actually currently about 30Bn light years radius. Reason we struggle with this, is we can only look back in time. We are not seeing the current situation: it's due to the finite speed of light.
Have decided to pursue Linear Algebra, one of my many Mathematical weaknesses. Must get to grips with the matrix:
1. The Geometry of Linear Equations - YouTube
So far, so good.
If the Universe is expanding, where is the centre? - YouTube
Discopete, you are thinking about a 2-sphere embedded in 3-Space. This is wrong. We are on the inside of this sphere. We cannot observe from the outside.
Every point and time in the Universe is as good as any other. There is no observable centre. And all is about what we can observe. Even if the reality is different and maybe ultimately unknowable.
Wherever you are, at any point in time, you see a Cosmic Microwave Background and some Galaxies. Back in the Early days it was hotter. Distances were smaller. But is any point more central than any other? NO. Wherever you happen to be, that is the centre.
So the centre is a diffuse concept. Is the centre of the Earth (er...) 4,000 miles down? Or is it spread all over the surface? The singularity has expanded from a point to the entire surface.
I am informed that though the Universe is 13.7Bn years old, it is actually currently about 30Bn light years radius. Reason we struggle with this, is we can only look back in time. We are not seeing the current situation: it's due to the finite speed of light.
Have decided to pursue Linear Algebra, one of my many Mathematical weaknesses. Must get to grips with the matrix:
1. The Geometry of Linear Equations - YouTube
So far, so good.
Last edited:
The interesting thing about space and time is that they are largely equivalent. You cannot have one without the other as Einstein showed.
But, for objects to be apart from one another, you need energy and this holds for large objects like galaxies all the way down to particles at the atomic and subatomic levels. There are other forces at work at the small scale that override gravity, but the general requirement for energy to be expended to create distance aka time between objects still holds. For an expanding universe, this seems to me to simply be the result of time increasing as a result of entropy as energy is expended, which we see as increasing distance ie red shift.
For dark matter, could it be that as energy is expended and time increases, it manifests as an apparent increase in mass? Why would this be the case? Perhaps because the objects are gravitationally bound.
Interestingly, the Milky Way is between 3 and 4 billion yrs older than Andromeda (depending on the study), has half the number of stars and is about 2/3rds the diameter and yet is almost twice as massive by some accounts. Galaxies should fly apart as the outer reaches are rotating fast enough to be able to escape the gravitational attraction of the visible matter, but they don’t because they are bound by this mysterious force, and the older they are, the more that should fly apart but don’t.
Maybe we don’t need gravitons or some exotic particle (seems particle physicists want a particle to explain everything!) but a reimagining of time, energy and entropy and how they behave at cosmic levels ie relativity on ‘steroids’
🙂
But, for objects to be apart from one another, you need energy and this holds for large objects like galaxies all the way down to particles at the atomic and subatomic levels. There are other forces at work at the small scale that override gravity, but the general requirement for energy to be expended to create distance aka time between objects still holds. For an expanding universe, this seems to me to simply be the result of time increasing as a result of entropy as energy is expended, which we see as increasing distance ie red shift.
For dark matter, could it be that as energy is expended and time increases, it manifests as an apparent increase in mass? Why would this be the case? Perhaps because the objects are gravitationally bound.
Interestingly, the Milky Way is between 3 and 4 billion yrs older than Andromeda (depending on the study), has half the number of stars and is about 2/3rds the diameter and yet is almost twice as massive by some accounts. Galaxies should fly apart as the outer reaches are rotating fast enough to be able to escape the gravitational attraction of the visible matter, but they don’t because they are bound by this mysterious force, and the older they are, the more that should fly apart but don’t.
Maybe we don’t need gravitons or some exotic particle (seems particle physicists want a particle to explain everything!) but a reimagining of time, energy and entropy and how they behave at cosmic levels ie relativity on ‘steroids’
🙂
Thanks Becky!!! Well done. No fuss.
Why is the universe expanding - i.e. everything moving apart...
Well, look at this - its just particles form the explosion expansion. Whats the problem? 🙂
Beirut Explosion: A compilation of videos of the explosion and the aftermath - YouTube
Let's say that we / the universe are now in a state like the one at time: 0:48 - we just missed the big blast - no traces of that - and in the aftermath a dust cloud that still expand as everything that we can see seems to move apart.
We are clearly still in the acceleration phase of an explosion - take it easy, it will retardate eventually.
And... the "observable" universe as we say.... o b s e r v a b l e ..... I promise you - its way bigger than that ;-D
//
Why is the universe expanding - i.e. everything moving apart...
Well, look at this - its just particles form the explosion expansion. Whats the problem? 🙂
Beirut Explosion: A compilation of videos of the explosion and the aftermath - YouTube
Let's say that we / the universe are now in a state like the one at time: 0:48 - we just missed the big blast - no traces of that - and in the aftermath a dust cloud that still expand as everything that we can see seems to move apart.
We are clearly still in the acceleration phase of an explosion - take it easy, it will retardate eventually.
And... the "observable" universe as we say.... o b s e r v a b l e ..... I promise you - its way bigger than that ;-D
//
What is the universe expanding into? It's bleeding obvious it is expanding into internet forums.
I get it. However if there was a Big Bang, there had to have been a singularity from which it occurred. Although that point/spot is now lost forever and cannot be located, there still has to be one. This is not a chicken or egg argument. That original point can't be theoretical if it existed. It was. Therefore it had a location. Unless I'm to believe the Big bang happened everywhere simultaneously. However a singularity can't be everywhere.
I say it again 🙂 the singularity was a result from a big crunch. Crunch-bang-crunch-bang-crunch... forever&ever.... Queen - The Millionaire Waltz (Official Lyric Video) - YouTube
//
//
Ever... how do you know. If you hop into observing the acceleration of a gun bullet and just get a glimpse of the process during 0,001 and 0,002 seconds - what would you think... ohh is this going to go on forever...???
Scale up your view.... think outside the box... think big!
//
Scale up your view.... think outside the box... think big!
//
A chicken starts from a single fertilized cell. Nobody can tell where exactly in a chiken the original location of that first cell. 🙂
Here... and only here... infinity comes in. It has gone on for ever and vill go on for ever. This is the only *real* infinity.
//
Okay, so you expect expansion to reach it's peak and then contraction begins?
And so the question...chicken or egg?
Also, why Big bounce? Why not just eternal expansion? In your scenario there's suggestion of beginning, over and over.
So I suspect you're a creationist who cannot reconcile the inevitable total isolation?
And so the question...chicken or egg?
Also, why Big bounce? Why not just eternal expansion? In your scenario there's suggestion of beginning, over and over.
So I suspect you're a creationist who cannot reconcile the inevitable total isolation?
Last edited:
Pete, speaking in physics lingo: everything, everywhere and everywhen can not be separated from and was the singularity. Making any sense to you or not. 🙂
So the singularity establishes existence itself?
Or should I say the Big bang establishes existence?
Or should I say the Big bang establishes existence?
Last edited:
Yes.
Infinity don't bother about chicken or eggs 😉
I know, its "heavy"... just get with program - it's the easy way out avoiding insanity.
Before the crunch begins, all matter has turned into light and thus, the universe is dark... black - fotons everywhere but noting solid to reflect on so... pitch dark.
//
What is called The Singularity is a postulated point (slightly beyond the limit physics can tell us anything) when we try to probe the beginning of existence using science.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.