And the real reason for expansion is ....

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: And the real reason for expansion is ....

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by swainy (tc) » Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:23 pm

Its a maze. Labyrinth. Good job, I had me some string. Nice talking to ya guys.

mark

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by bystander » Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:17 pm

swainy (tc) wrote:So are we agreed? The universe is a dieing, Huge Black Hole, And i can move on from this?
Actually, no, I don't agree, and neither do Sean Carroll or Steve Nerlich.

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by swainy (tc) » Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:07 pm

So are we agreed? The universe is a dieing, Huge Black Hole, And i can move on from this?
tc

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by swainy (tc) » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:54 pm

bystander wrote:
swainy (tc) wrote:I'm been very serious, about what I just posted bystander.
Then maybe you should go read the thread I posted above. http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 31&t=18966
Yest mate, I agree with your post. just confirming it.

tc

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by swainy (tc) » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:50 pm

What happens to a very big dieing star? What happens to a very very huge dieing Black Hole? Why would they be any different? (Time)

Mark

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by bystander » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:49 pm

swainy (tc) wrote:I'm been very serious, about what I just posted bystander.
Then maybe you should go read the thread I posted above. http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 31&t=18966

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by swainy (tc) » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:36 pm

bystander wrote:
swainy (tc) wrote:I Got To be close.
I think you are in the wrong ball park. http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 31&t=18966
I never knew about the Frankenstein Tigers. When did they win the world series?

I'm been very serious, about what I just posted bystander. I think the numbers will work.

tc

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by bystander » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:25 pm

swainy (tc) wrote:I Got To be close.
I think you are in the wrong ball park. http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 31&t=18966

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by swainy (tc) » Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:16 pm

:idea: Are we inside a black hole? This black hole we are in, is governed by relative physics. And Quantum physics? Where by its process cant exceed the universal Tic Toc. Everything needs Time. The bigger it gets, it needs more time. And because of this, the big bang needs 30 billion years to happen. We are in, an exploding Black Hole? Our Universe Is An exploding Black Hole. A Very Big One. I Got To be close. Quantum/Matter/From No where? Or Duel particle expansion?

Mark

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Beyond » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:41 am

swainy wrote:
beyond wrote:Swainy, we don't know if we've won - yet. As Yogi Bera used to say -- "it ain't over til it's over".
Watch the vid: http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FFs4g9Y ... re=related

Don't shoot the messenger. :wink:

The Code (Swainy)
No worries Swainy, no need to shoot the messenger, as I've heard that and a lot more over the years.
As the narrater said - scientists come to the point where they realize that there must have been a designer--but they don't want to hear that.
I've found out a long time ago and more-so recently, that when you run into something that seems so contrary to what you understand, just set what you already know off on the side, out of the way, and put all of your concentration on what seems so contrary. more likely than not you will find out that it is not what you thought it was and it contains something that actually blends right in with what you already knew and even makes it better.

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by swainy » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:09 am

beyond wrote:Swainy, we don't know if we've won - yet. As Yogi Bera used to say -- "it ain't over til it's over".
Watch the vid: http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FFs4g9Y ... re=related

Don't shoot the messenger. :wink:

The Code (Swainy)

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Beyond » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:00 am

Swainy, we don't know if we've won - yet. As Yogi Bera used to say -- "it ain't over til it's over".

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by swainy » Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:37 am

Beyond. 10 out of 10 for Effort. Respect.

Work this out. The cosmological constant has to be accurate to with in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Or the Universe as we know, would not be. Fancy winning that lottery? I guess we did.

tc

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Beyond » Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:01 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
beyond wrote:The Universe, to me, will expand untill it stops and then it will just stay there in an expanded state, just like everything else that is animated(living?)does.
Perhaps that is how you see it, but you should distinguish this philosophical viewpoint from the scientific one, which rather strongly suggests the Universe will continue to expand forever- an idea that is not at odds in any way with any fundamental scientific concepts, or even with many naturally observed phenomena at our scale.
Actually it is not at odds with what i said either, at least the way i see it. It could be that as far as human-kind is concerned, the Universe will never reach it's fully expanded state.
It would seem that the bigger part of science is observation. I observe that all animated Beings start off smaller than their full growth and expand into it and then stop expanding(unless you eat a lot of the material that is around the hole of the donut). That would seem to me to be a scientific observation.
I also have discovered through scientists and other ways, that the material of the Earth that we come from has come from the Universe that is expanding. There-fore the logical conclusion that i have reached is that we(Humans)are a very small version of a bigger happening - The Universe.
By extrapolation of the smaller part(US)to the bigger part(Universe)the bigger part should also have a full growth size at which point it also stops growing.
However, having said that, we the smaller just do not have any idea of what the full growth size of the bigger is and may not be able to comprehend it even if we did know. So for all "PRACTICAL" purposes(not actual purposes)the universe will never stop expanding.
However, having said that, there is a motion law that says - "a body in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon by a Greater force." IF some day the Universe should encounter a Greater force than itself -- we may find ourselves in just a little bit of trouble.
I would say that i have followed mostly scientific principles in reaching my conclusion. After this post, perhaps my prior post will not appear to be to be so Philosophical, whatever that is.

Here is another observation that i have about the real reason for expansion. When the tempreture of water drops to a certain degree, there is a molecular change and the water expands. Extrapolating the smaller to the bigger - The Universe has been cooling off for quite a while now. I see that just as water, the universe may have reached a trigger point of some kind and has speeded up to try and attain it's full size before complete entropy sets in.

Chris -- you said that the scientific viewpoint strongly suggests the Universe will continue to expand forever - an idea that is not at odds in any way with any fundamental scientific concepts.

Unless of course complete entropy sets in and we all find out if the laws of thermodynamics are right and the Universe comes to a stop, or the Universe keeps going and we find out that someting else is driving the expansion.

So far i have presented three examples of expansion that work differently. I would now like to present a 4th example of expansion - Eating. No, not the eating around the donut hole kind, the Black Hole kind. From what i have managed to pick up about black holes, the bigger ones are bigger because they eat more and they eat more because there is more around them to eat.

I see the Universe as needing more energy to keep itself going as it gets bigger from expanding. Not much seems to be known about energy except that it can't be created or destroyed by anything that man is aware of. I see that it is entirely possible that at the spot where the big bang happened, the Universe is drawing energy through from somewhere else (like someone sucking through a straw)to keep itself energized as it grows. If the Universe is indeed like us and vice-versa, then things wear out and have to be replaced. Whereas we consume formed energy, the Universe would only need to consume raw energy, to feed to all it's processes and they would convert the raw energy into whatever was needed, just as we do with formed energy.

I have presented these 4 examples because i see that 4 is a base number for many things in this Universe. They are all different examples of the same thing - expansion.
I see these four examples as each containing a clue to something important. Perhaps one day someone will be able to find the clues and put them together and.........well, i don't know. That hasn't happened as yet. But it just may have something to do with the Theory of Everything.
Thats how i see it, now.

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by swainy » Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:43 pm

Henning Makholm wrote:Hmm, I thought we were covered by "Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions.
Bare with it, it will come to my point. 1 of 5

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=35qntqRBo5I

There are some shocking stats in Part two. Quote: Any fine tune, to any value in the universe, and we would not exist.

tc

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Chris Peterson » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:30 pm

beyond wrote:The Universe, to me, will expand untill it stops and then it will just stay there in an expanded state, just like everything else that is animated(living?)does.
Perhaps that is how you see it, but you should distinguish this philosophical viewpoint from the scientific one, which rather strongly suggests the Universe will continue to expand forever- an idea that is not at odds in any way with any fundamental scientific concepts, or even with many naturally observed phenomena at our scale.

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Beyond » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:56 pm

To me, the expansion of the universe reminds me of a loaf of bread rising. Except that the cause of rising in the loaf, at some point, will run out of oomph and the loaf will fall greatly, if not baked(set in place)just before the greatest height in rising.
The Universe, to me, will expand untill it stops and then it will just stay there in an expanded state, just like everything else that is animated(living?)does. Does not matter whether it is plant,animal or human, all grow into the size that they grow into and then stop and stay that way. So unless the Earth is a separate entity from the Universe - the Universe should also grow into its own size and then stop, just like everything else does.
So the real reason for expansion is....so that everthing can attain it's full size.

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Henning Makholm » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:06 pm

Ann wrote:
Henning Makholm wrote: In retrospect, somebody probably ought to have asked themselves where all the entropy of the incoming universe would go during the process, but there are all sorts of ways to think around the Second Law of Thermodynamics if you really want to.
If you really want to... that's pretty much my point, Henning. The bouncing universe seems to be one that many people want, so some astronomers may try their best to oblige them. Demand and supply, you know...
That's a bit uncharitable. Would those astronomers not be able to want things for themselves? The Second Law sounds pessimistic enough on its face that I really cannot fault the theorist who wants to find a way around it.
You are talking about Fred Hoyle, aren't you?
Not that I know of. The name doesn't ring any particular bell. (Untill I googled. It probably should have, but I'm bad with names).
I don't think he is very represtentative of atheists, certainly not of modern-day atheists.
I was not implying that that the (un)reasoning I described was representative of "atheists" in general. I would sooner claim that readheads have a uniform opinion about building codes.
Yes, today the Big Bounce seems to be a pretty religious idea.
I don't think the Big Bounce itself even has enough serious advocates today that trying to generalize about their motivation is very enlightening. It is unattractive from a scientific point of view (because of thermodynamics and GR), and it doesn't go far enough for those who're willing to disregard scientific evidence for religious reasons. (If you want a 7-day genesis, you'll want to avoid the big bang altogether, not precede it by an earlier universe).
bystander wrote:Please leave religion, or lack thereof, out of the discussion, Rule #14.
Hmm, I thought we were covered by "Focused, polite discussion of concepts such as creationism and "intelligent design" which bear direct relevance to astronomy and science, for the purposes of conversing about and addressing misconceptions." It's not as if Ann and I are trying to convert each other ...

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Chris Peterson » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:53 pm

Ann wrote:Religion aside, does anyone know how much support the Big Bounce hypothesis (which postulates that our universe is going to undergo collapse and then rise again, phoenix-like, from the ashes of the Big Crunch) receives from professional astronomers of today?
Not much, because it depends on the Universe collapsing in a Big Crunch. That idea made sense before observations demonstrated with a fair degree of certainty that the expansion rate of the Universe is increasing, and therefore it will not ever collapse.

Some ideas ("theory" is probably too strong) are out there that the Universe may be the bounce from a previous one, but if that was part of a cyclic pattern, it appears to have stopped with our universe.

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Ann » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:45 pm

Please leave religion, or lack thereof, out of the discussion, Rule #14.
Sorry, bystander. I was out of line.

Religion aside, does anyone know how much support the Big Bounce hypothesis (which postulates that our universe is going to undergo collapse and then rise again, phoenix-like, from the ashes of the Big Crunch) receives from professional astronomers of today?

Ann

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by bystander » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:14 pm

Please leave religion, or lack thereof, out of the discussion, Rule #14.

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Ann » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:01 pm

Henning Makholm wrote: In retrospect, somebody probably ought to have asked themselves where all the entropy of the incoming universe would go during the process, but there are all sorts of ways to think around the Second Law of Thermodynamics if you really want to.
If you really want to... that's pretty much my point, Henning. The bouncing universe seems to be one that many people want, so some astronomers may try their best to oblige them. Demand and supply, you know... where there is a demand for something, some people will do their best to supply it.
Hm, I get a somewhat opposite impression. A lot of the early emotional resistance to the big bang idea came from atheists who felt that the idea that the universe has existed for only a finite time sounded too much like creationism. If the universe was created 15 gigayears ago, there must have been a Creator, nyet? And because only stupid people think there was a Creator, the universe must have been around forever, and we have to find a way to explain the observations without concluding that time started at that point. Ergo: a bouncing universe!
You are talking about Fred Hoyle, aren't you? He was a famous atheist with many strange ideas. I don't think he is very represtentative of atheists, certainly not of modern-day atheists.
Today of course, the dominant mode of emotional resistance to the big bang seems to come from religuous people who dislike it simply because it is a different story from the 7-day Genesis.
Yes, today the Big Bounce seems to be a pretty religious idea.

Ann

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Henning Makholm » Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:45 pm

Ann wrote:(I can't say that many professional astronomers seemed to be confident that a Big Crunch was coming or that it would give rise to a new Big Bang or a new habitable universe,
I think the idea that a big crunch would be followed by a big bang is fairly natural and intuitive. Imagine naive (non-relativistic) picture of the "end times" of a collapsing universe, where all galaxies converge towards a central point following an inverse Hubble law. If we assume that each galaxy just coasts through the center as per Newton's First Law, without interacting with the other galaxies doing the same simultaneously, we end up immediately after the crunch event with a universe full of galaxies moving away from each other following a Hubble law, which more or less matches the era we find ourselves in now.

Now, since in the real world galaxies have some proper motion overlaid with the Hubble pattern it didn't seem too fanciful to imagine that most of the matter in a collapsing universe could miss the collapse target by just enough that it wouldn't have to interact with other matter strongly enough to form a singularity. Entire galaxies and probably even individual stars would still collide, but as long as the elementary particles survived, this might just be what was needed to grind up the matter of the universe into the uniform soup that the big-bang theories suppose.

In retrospect, somebody probably ought to have asked themselves where all the entropy of the incoming universe would go during the process, but there are all sorts of ways to think around the Second Law of Thermodynamics if you really want to.

In any case, it was only with the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems from around 1970 that the idea of "just missing the collapse center, and continue by expanding" was conclusively found to be unworkable (at least within General Relativity).
And if good people die and go to Heaven, why shouldn't our good universe die and rise again and go to Big Bang-Heaven? And why shouldn't a new Big Bang produce a universe just like ours, only perhaps a little better?

As a non-religious person, I regard the Big Bounce hypothesis as a mixture of religious ideas and wishful thinking.
Hm, I get a somewhat opposite impression. A lot of the early emotional resistance to the big bang idea came from atheists who felt that the idea that the universe has existed for only a finite time sounded too much like creationism. If the universe was created 15 gigayears ago, there must have been a Creator, nyet? And because only stupid people think there was a Creator, the universe must have been around forever, and we have to find a way to explain the observations without concluding that time started at that point. Ergo: a bouncing universe!

Today of course, the dominant mode of emotional resistance to the big bang seems to come from religuous people who dislike it simply because it is a different story from the 7-day Genesis.

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by makc » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:12 am

Ann wrote:As a non-religious person, I regard the Big Bounce hypothesis as a mixture of religious ideas and wishful thinking.
No, no, it's true, I saw it on Futurama. And you know that you can trust Futurama on subjects of astronomy.

p.s. check out wikipedia Big Bounce entry.

Re: And the real reason for expansion is ....

by Ann » Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:42 am

I have been following the discussion about the fate of the universe for a much longer time than astronomers have known about the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. I know that there is a hardcore lot out there who have been around for a long time, and who want to live in a "bouncing universe". This is a universe where the expansion comes to a halt and is followed by contraction, a Big Crunch and then, wonderfully enough, a new Big Bang. The Big Bounce hypothesis postulates that universe will die a "fiery death" and then rise again, phoenix-like, and presumably produce new habitable planets populated by human-like beings. (I can't say that many professional astronomers seemed to be confident that a Big Crunch was coming or that it would give rise to a new Big Bang or a new habitable universe, but some people who wrote popular science books for the general public, as well as some of those who wrote for magazines like Astronomy and Sky & Telescope, really seemed to love the idea.)

So, when astronomers could observe that the unvierse seemed to expand, many of those who wrote for the general public expressed their wishful thinking theories that the universe would contract and collapse and give rise to a new Big Bang. Now, when astronomers can observe that the expansion of the universe seems to accelerate, some of the champions of the Big Bounce universe still look for ways that the universe might collapse and be crunched out of existence, only to rise again. The hypothesis of the "chameleon force" of dark energy seems designed to produce the bouncing universe. Or rather, this new hypothesis seems designed to turn acceleration into deceleration and collapse, which is what is needed to produce a Big Bounce.

As far as I know, there is extremely little stringent tehoretical support for the idea that the universe would rise again if it was crushed out of existence in a Big Crunch, but such nitpicking probably doesn't worry the Big Bounce proponents. After all, there is extremely little hard scientific support for the idea that good people go to Heaven after they die, but lots of believers think it is true anyway. And if good people die and go to Heaven, why shouldn't our good universe die and rise again and go to Big Bang-Heaven? And why shouldn't a new Big Bang produce a universe just like ours, only perhaps a little better?

As a non-religious person, I regard the Big Bounce hypothesis as a mixture of religious ideas and wishful thinking. And I think that the New Scientist is often high on speculation and low on hard facts when it writes about astronomy.

Ann

Top