So about this "Universe's Accelerating Expansion"Follow

I might as well say now (with all it's flamification ramifications) that I have done bearly any research on this topic but I like my hair brained theories.

Sin waves appear ALL over in nature - earth itself does it in many diffrent ways, one example being climate changes over millenia. So, why not the universe. We may not have been around long enough to experience it but instead of all this "we're accelerating" "we're slowing down" "we're going to implode" or "we're all going to fall apart" - How about we're just going to expand until a certain point then collapse again until we expand again, constantly moving along the wave? I suppose acceleration doesn't support this theory, rather slowing down would so I guess it actually doesn't hold up at all but I liked it two minutes ago.

Meh, I'm only a beginner in metaphysical bullsh[/b]it.

Edit: take 2: Ok, so I was thinking about that article and a line began to stick out Why so quickly assume we're in the "aftermath" we have no idea the exact extent of "The Big Bang" even with all the theories in the string theory community so why would it be so hard to believe that we're still feeling the effects of the initial blast pushing us away from it? Maybe we're still accelerating and eventually will begin to slow and finally just stop? Which begs the question: what happens when the universe "stops"? Do we just stop and that's it or...?

Also, we're accelerating right? So, everything's moving away from us at an accelerated pace. I get that but if we invision a giant sphere expanding then the farther you move towards the outside of the circle (who's border is constantly expanding anyway but we'll stick with the term "outside") won't the space between you and the nearest astrological body grow in size at an exponential rate? If you were observing the sphere from the outside you could say it's expanding "X" amount per second but from a moving point on the inside you would have to be able to observe the center since it would be the only stationary point, right? I'm trying to think of the diffrent mathimatical possibilities for solving the problem using only constantly changing variables but I can't seem to grasp it - I feel like theres a way - it's like on the edge of my mind, or maybe it's impossible which kind of makes me wonder why no one else asked this before.

edit: so I think there actually is a way to do this but I need to hunt down the identity again cause I can't remember the details for the life of me >.<

edit: I've decided that there isn't within my current knowledge - again ">.<"

I may have used the term "exponential rate" improperly but I'm pretty sure it's right in this case =/

Edited, Sun Jan 15 00:41:53 2006 by Pandorra

edited my previous post.

wtf mates?

This depends on the "rules" of the universe, which we're still working on figuring out. Our current "traditional" view of physics really doesn't support that kind of process. At least traditional forces could not account for it. We see wave patterns in nature because they are part of a whole. A top wobbles while it spins, but that's because it's one element which has other factors being applied to it (in this case, some pretty simple ones). Things like the environment on earth are similarly affected in sine wave like patterns over time. Oscillation is a common thing in nature, but in all cases it requires external forces to work. We move through seasons because of the earth's tilt and route around the sun. We move through longer patterns of weather due to other longer term factors (changes of chemical compositions in the air and water for example). But those things are all "winding down" over time. Just like that top. But it takes a *really* long time.

You can't really apply that to the universe's expansion and/or contraction itself though. Since there's nothing external to affect it, it shouldn't (theoretically) oscillate in that manner. It'll either continue expanding, or it'll stop, reverse, and collapse. There's no logical force we know of within the universe itself to make it shift from collapsing back to expanding. At least not that we know of...




Again. That's not in keeping with our current understanding of astro-physics. Normal explosive forces and gravity both work in predictable and well understood ways. An explosion imparts a velocity on something, but not an acceleration. Certainly, there's nothing in "normal" physics to explain objects that continue to accelerate apart billions of years after the event that set them in motion. They should simply have a velocity that is spreading them appart, and this is either high enough to "escape" from the gravitational pull of all other objects around them, or it wont be. So far, we're having a really hard time figuring out which case is true, so realize that everything else is pretty theoretical as well.


What this article is talking about is that there is evidence that things are indeed accelerating apart. Which, of course, blows the "traditional" understanding of astro-physics out of the water. There has always been a sub theory that there is some other process of expansion in the universe not related simply to large objects moving apart in classical ways. One explanation I heard was to think of the universe as a sponge. Pretend it's squished into a tight ball to start with, but then is released and gradually expands (or maybe it absorbs water and expands or something). Point being that it's not that objects are moving apart, so much as the space between them is stretching. Additionally, there are "gaps" in space, just like those in a sponge. We can't see or interact with them. They seem to not exist (because they *don't*). However, they are taking up extra "space" in between the rest of the universe as it stretches (which would be needed to preserve some of our conservation of matter/energy laws in physics).

A side aspect to this theory is that apparent expansion/contraction of the universe can simply be expressed as the ratio between the rate at which those "gaps" are growing in proportion to the overall stretching of the rest of space (that which we can percieve and interact with). If the gaps are growing faster, then the universe will appear to be contracting. If the rest of the sponge is stretching faster, then it'll appear to be expanding.


Dunno. I always kinda liked that theory. But it's one of many that could explain things. Problem is that we're just scratching the surface of even being able to detect the basic indicators of these things, so trying to explain them beyond purely theoretical models is hard. It's an interesting topic though...

Our sun is not massive enough to go super nova. It will turn into a red giant and then collapse into, I believe, a white dwarf (alert Ironforge!).

Yes, as one of the above posters said, we don't yet know which fate awaits us - but depending on which threshold is hit (edit, or not hit), we'll either start contracting after a point, eventually slamming down into the "Big Crunch" (and the entire universe will be compressed into a singularity) - or our universe will continue to drift apart from itself in a looooong slooooow trip to utter coldness (the "Big Unravel" perhaps?).

Dark matter and now, I suppose, Dark energy are among a number of theories scientists use, most in a "fiat" sort of way, to monkey with their models and to try to guess our ultimate fate.

Edited, Fri Jan 13 03:38:57 2006 by IponemaGirl

workin' on that

<cough>

anyone else have any ideas of how it is that our universe is expanding at an accelerated pace?
--------------------------------------------------

if the energy used to push us apart has not started to dimminish yet, then as we move further apart, the gravitational forces galaxies hold over each other will become weaker and weaker, allowing the force moving us further apart to push us faster and faster.

thus the zero sum theory. all things are equal.

the force used to push us apart is equal to the force used to pull us together. eventually, we will reach the point where the force pushing us becomes less than the force pulling us together, and we will start moving toward each other. and being that gravity, the force pulling us together is a constant, and the force puching us apart is a singularity, more powerfull, yet shorter in duration, but still equal in total energy, short of another big bang, we will all collapse into super dense matter, which i might point out is what some scientist think caused the big bang to begine with, repeating the whole process over again.

how many times has this repeated itself? ther ecould have been hundreds, billions of cycles al creating an earth at one time or another. immagine if we reach a point with technology where we can step off, and out of a soloar system and exist in space long enough to sustain our species untill the next cycle. this, being th eonly way our species WILL continue to exist. which is why scientist firmly believe space should be our destination. without the ability to get off this rock, we will surly perish as a species, not to mention, at some point we WILL exhaust the resources of this rock with our ever expanding population, and our continous mishandeling of natural resources.

or could a consciousness existing without mass, mabe as energy, like God, have created THIS big bang by somehow igniting the ball of dense matter in the first place?..............

makes you go hmmmmmm.......

is it possible that if we discover what caused the big bang, we might infact, discover God? and that mabe we are destined to exist past the collapse of the universe as "energy" or "spirit"? and that appocolypse in Revelations actually describes the point where our planet is destroyed in this collapse? mabe?.......

Has the scientific community suddenly found religion?

Nope, scientist are just not afraid to say "I dont know", and continue to search for an answer. Its the religious people who need to find science.

There is one theory that the quantum laws were different at early celestial development, which would account for the early rapid expansion, but it may be a while befire we are technologically sophisticated to examine light speeds at various other quantum states.

At the current time, light relative to any observer is constant, regardless of age.

Einstein was an atheist, learn your histroy before you quote it. Im sure you simply heard a few of his quotes withe the word god in it and ran with it. The truth is he referred to the mystery of the universe as god, and EMPHATICALLY did not beleive in a personal god of any kind.

One of einstien's biggest frustrations was religious leaders who would use him as a refference for scientific beleif.

As for other scientist beleiving in god, yes, there are. But the percentage of people that beleive in god exponentially decreases as education increases. Besides, scientist do not beleive in things out of reference, we could give a rats *** who else beleives something if there is nothing to support it, we need proof, evidence, or anything more than religious dogma and ignorant meanderings.

Edited, Sat Jan 14 12:57:11 2006 by EvilPhysicist