Reply With Quote
so the universe will or won't collapse, is/is not oscillating?
Vedanta gurus claim the universe has been through 40 oscillations.
Science News. Quite big.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13462926Einstein was right
To explain why the expansion of the Universe was speeding up, astronomers had to either rewrite Albert Einstein's theory of gravity or accept that the cosmos was filled with a novel type of energy.
"The action of dark energy is as if you threw a ball up in the air, and it kept speeding upward into the sky faster and faster," said co-author Dr Chris Blake of the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia.
"The results tell us that dark energy is a cosmological constant, as Einstein proposed. If gravity were the culprit, then we wouldn't be seeing these constant effects of dark energy throughout time."
so the universe will or won't collapse, is/is not oscillating?
Vedanta gurus claim the universe has been through 40 oscillations.
I thought that dark energy was accepted by the scientific community at large already?
To be honest though, dark energy/quantum physics just goes to show how much yet we have to learn. According to the article, "regular" matter makes up 4% of the cosmos. 4%! Science is crazy.
Yeah, it's been accepted for a few years yet, these tests serve to confirm earlier observations. I assume there will be follow on tests to determine the specific parameters of this dark matter constant. Exciting stuff. The spirit of Chandrashekar is probably out there smiling. I'm sure much of his work will be validated through this breakthrough as well.
On a mildly related note, you can expect this 12 year old to probably figure it out.
Jacob Barnett
http://www.indystar.com/article/2011...studying-IUPUI
Kid is an ueber genius at math and physics. Holy crap.
For Jake, that meant astronomy. As a 3-year-old, he loved looking at a book about stars, over and over again.
So off they went on a tour of the Holcomb Observatory and Planetarium at Butler University.
Kristine Barnett will never forget the day.
"We were in the crowd, just sitting, listening to this guy ask the crowd if anyone knew why the moons going around Mars were potato-shaped and not round," she recalls. "Jacob raised his hand and said, 'Excuse me, but what are the sizes of the moons around Mars?' "
The lecturer answered, and "Jacob looked at him and said the gravity of the planet . . . is so large that (the moon's) gravity would not be able to pull it into a round shape."
Silence.
"That entire building . . . everyone was just looking at him, like, 'Who is this 3-year-old?' "
this is what i dont get if the universe is expanding, then how come within our solar system, shouldnt the distance between the lining planets also expand outwards?
is our system also moving further away from point A = start of the universe?
From what I understand of the article it probably is, but the effect on such a small scale is probably pretty minute.
When you scale up to the gaps between galaxies, that is a whole other matter entirely.
To my knowledge, the assumption the universe is expanding is based on using the red-shift and or blue-shift of observed galaxies elsewhere, and science as we understand it. I wouldn't accept that hypothesis as fact. I would say it probably is true, but I keep open the possibility that something else can account for these Doppler effects of light.
if universe expanding from point A forwards/outwards...is there anything b4 point A? or just dark space clouds only???
It's still hard for me to believe 96% of the universe is unobservable
It basically means we are a ing speck of dust in a large vast ocean.
Most amazing the universe was created 6,000 years ago just for man on earth, and in just 144 hours. God complies with Blue Laws.
and to think he used only 11% of his brain
in the immortal boutonbot's words,
go yourself
this dark matter or energy, where the source come from?
someone should explain why its pitch black in space....why black?
That seems pretty bogus to me. If what he said were the case, our reference would be relatively expanding as well, and the net effect would be we see no change.
The Doppler effect makes more sense. I would guess that his perspective comes from an idea that infinity doesn't exist.
Who is this guy anyway? Is he a writer of the X-Files?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-26-2011 at 04:33 PM.
That's 96% of the assumed universe...
That's obviously an incorrect translation of the word.
It seems pretty bogus to you because you are the an hesis of Einstein.
The net effect would be nothing? I have no idea what you're trying to communicate, but I'll try to address it anyway with a simple example.
If you baked a blueberry muffin in which the blueberries were galaxies and the dough were space, the expansion of the dough would move the blueberries away not just from the center but from EACH OTHER. (i.e., if the blueberries were 1/4 of an inch away from each other when you started baking they would be greater than 1/4 of an inch away from each other when you stopped, the net effect is not zero even though the reference point (which ever blueberry you tracked) has also moved)
Read Redshift Velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law
&
http://www.df.uba.ar/users/sgil/phys...r_redshift.pdf
I understand all that.
If space itself is expanding, then there would be no perceived color shift if it expanded evenly. For us to see a color shift, the expansion would not be uniform.
If we had light at 300 nm (nanometers) and the universe expanded by 5% over the millions of years traveled to us, it would be 315 nm. Our present day reference for 300 nm then, would also expand to 315 nm.
There would be no perceived color change, unless the expansion was not uniform.
Now if you are saying the wavelength remains constant as the universe expands, then we would see a blue shift rather than red.
Um, wow. Ok.
If read that 2nd one correctly, then it could be said that mass is shrinking rather than the universe expanding. Same net effect, and not seen from our perspective. For the explanation to be sound, would be to suggest that the size of mass can be changed in a given space. There would have to be no "fabric" of space that holds a constant for mass size for the expansion theory if they are saying what I think they are.
Still, when you boil it down, if an expanding universe rather than galaxies moving through a universe were true, the physical distance is changing, and there is a net Doppler effect. So... just how is it different?
Seems like more science fiction than science.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
