Spyman

Do you claim to make this observation by yourself or do you have a reference to a reputable resource showing galaxies to be generally more spread out at distances further away from Earth or in a more remote past?

The Big Bang theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations. You do not have to concede to this theory, you are free to have your own opinion and belief. But making provocations and calling it "complete nonsense" without providing any support for why you disagree is neither very inviting nor gives us much to debate... If you want a serious discussion around this topic, I suggest that you make a new thread for that purpose in a very humble attitude, asking for explanations instead of challenging scientific consensus. Start it out with really good arguments and questions and it's a good change that helpful people will join and contribute.

AFAIK, the Heat Death is currently favored by our observations, althought a Big Rip is not entirely ruled out. From my understanding the cosmological constant is used for when the expansion is accelerating at a constant rate leading to not bound systems to drift apart and eventually reach and pass their cosmic horizons, whereas phantom energy causes the expansion to accelerate at an accelerating rate, leading to bound systems being ripped apart. "If the acceleration continues indefinitely, the ultimate result will be that galaxies outside the local supercluster will move beyond the cosmic horizon: they will no longer be visible, because their line-of-sight velocity becomes greater than the speed of light. This is not a violation of special relativity, and the effect cannot be used to send a signal between them. (Actually there is no way to even define "relative speed" in a curved spacetime. Relative speed and velocity can only be meaningfully defined in flat spacetime or in sufficiently small (infinitesimal) regions of curved spacetime). Rather, it prevents any communication between them as the objects pass out of contact. The Earth, the Milky Way and the Virgo supercluster, however, would remain virtually undisturbed while the rest of the universe recedes. In this scenario, the local supercluster would ultimately suffer heat death, just as was thought for the flat, matter-dominated universe, before measurements of cosmic acceleration. There are some very speculative ideas about the future of the universe. One suggests that phantom energy causes divergent expansion, which would imply that the effective force of dark energy continues growing until it dominates all other forces in the universe. Under this scenario, dark energy would ultimately tear apart all gravitationally bound structures, including galaxies and solar systems, and eventually overcome the electrical and nuclear forces to tear apart atoms themselves, ending the universe in a "Big Rip"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy "Theories about the end of universe The fate of the universe is determined by the density of the universe. The preponderance of evidence to date, based on measurements of the rate of expansion and the mass density, favors a universe that will continue to expand indefinitely, resulting in the "big freeze" scenario below. However new understandings of the nature of dark matter also suggest its interactions with mass and gravity demonstrate the possibility of an oscillating universe. Big Freeze or Heat death The Big Freeze is a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature. It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. This scenario is currently the most commonly accepted theory within the scientific community. A related scenario is Heat death, which states that the universe goes to a state of maximum entropy in which everything is evenly distributed, and there are no gradients — which are needed to sustain information processing, one form of which is life. The Heat Death scenario is compatible with any of the three spatial models, but requires that the universe reach an eventual temperature minimum. Big Rip: Finite Lifespan In the special case of phantom dark energy, which has even more negative pressure than a simple cosmological constant, the density of dark energy increases with time, causing the rate of acceleration to increase, leading to a steady increase in the Hubble constant. As a result, all material objects in the universe, starting with galaxies and eventually (in a finite time) all forms, no matter how small, will disintegrate into unbound elementary particles and radiation, ripped apart by the phantom energy force and shooting apart from each other. The end state of the universe is a singularity, as the dark energy density and expansion rate becomes infinite. For a possible timeline based on current physical theories, see 1 E19 s and more." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_Universe#Theories_about_the_end_of_universe

1) The speed of light, c, is the physical constant of the speed light through vacuum. The speed of light through different media will be lower, but the value of c does not change. "The speed of light, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. Light and all other electromagnetic radiation always travel at this speed in empty space (vacuum)," "The speed at which light propagates through transparent materials, such as glass or air, is less than c. The ratio between c and the speed v at which light travels in a material is called the refractive index n of the material (n = c / v). For example, for visible light the refractive index of glass is typically around 1.5, meaning that light in glass travels at c / 1.5 ≈ 200,000 km/s; the refractive index of air for visible light is about 1.0003, so the speed of light in air is very close to c." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light 2) In different media the speed of light is not the maximum speed possible, Cherenkov radiation is emitted when charged particles passes through at speeds greater than the speed of light in that medium. "While relativity holds that the speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant ©, the speed at which light propagates in a material may be significantly less than c. For example, the speed of the propagation of light in water is only 0.75c. Matter can be accelerated beyond this speed during nuclear reactions and in particle accelerators. Cherenkov radiation results when a charged particle, most commonly an electron, travels through a dielectric (electrically polarizable) medium with a speed greater than that at which light would otherwise propagate in the same medium." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation 3) Gravitational Redshift doesn't change the speed of light, it changes the energy of the lightbeem by increasing its wavelenght, so it looks more red but still travels with c. "In physics, light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength originating from a source placed in a region of stronger gravitational field (and which could be said to have climbed "uphill" out of a gravity well) will be found to be of longer wavelength when received by an observer in a region of weaker gravitational field. If applied to optical wave-lengths this manifests itself as a change in the colour of the light as the wavelength is shifted toward the red (making it less energetic, longer in wavelength, and lower in frequency) part of the spectrum." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift ---------- [EDIT] Here is a great article on the timeline of the Universe: The Great Cosmic Battle The expansion of the Universe itself provides an intensely dramatic example of the ubiquitous struggle between the force of gravity and entropy. As the Universe expands and becomes more spread out, gravity resists this trend and tries to pull the expanding Universe back together. The particular fate which our future holds depends on whether gravity wins or loses this cosmic battle, whose outcome depends on the total amount of mass and energy contained within the Universe. Current astronomical data strongly suggest that gravity has already lost this critical conflict and our fate will be determined by a continued and unending expansion. http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/0001/cosmic.html

Shutter time in the camera on the spaceship would be subjected to time dilation relative the camera on Earth. From the frame of the camera in the spaceship the distance might seem 7 times closer but clocks on Earth would tick 7 times slower. Thus the camera on Earth has its shutter open and recieves photons for a 7 times longer period, while the camera on the spaceship collects photons from a 7 times longer distance. I seems that their pictures would be equally good, except maybe for the effect of less redshifting.

Picture B represents how we perceive our observable part of the Universe surrounding us.

So we seem to be in agreement, but why then are you quoting me instead of Almehdi, who is the one asking about "accelerating expansion speed versus mass gain of the universe" ?

Well, "the most distant thing" sounds a little wrong for several reasons: First of all, the Big Bang is not a thing, it is a state of our Universe or a transition from a previous one, with a duration of time depending on definition. As such there should be signals from the beginning of the Big Bang which would appear to be more distant than signals from the end of the Big Bang. Secondly, I doubt that at the very first time stamp of our Universe it was infinite small and totally without distances, which therefor leads me to think that there will be more or less distant objects to view, from even the very first time stamp of the Big Bang. Also if the Universe is infinite in size, of which we currently do not know, then it was infinite in size back then at the very first time stamp of the Big Bang too, only with a higer density, thus there could be objects infinite distant already at the very first time stamp of the Big Bang. The Big Bang would therefor not likely be observed like a sharp point like single shell surrounding us but more probably have a large or infinite depth with signals from more and more distant objects in the Big Bang state reaching us. (Not taking into account limits from an accelerated expansion.) Third and much more speculative are signals from before the Big Bang. If there was a previous Universe collapsing before the Big Bang then it is not impossible that there could be some cind of signals surviving the Big Bang and passing through to us and then appear to be even more distant than very close objects during the Big Bang. Or at least in theory objects in a previous Universe would be more distant than the Big Bang itself.

There are a lot of calculations and competing models but to my understandig there has not been any observations of the slightest mass gain of the whole Universe. "The ultimate fate of the universe is a topic in physical cosmology. Many possible fates are predicted by rival scientific theories, including futures of both finite and infinite duration. Once the notion that the universe started with a Big Bang became accepted by a consensus of scientists, the ultimate fate of the universe became a valid cosmological question, one depending upon the physical properties of the mass/energy in the universe, its average density, and the rate of expansion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe "the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed., and that neither one appears without the other. Thus in closed systems, both mass and energy are conserved separately, just as was understood in pre-relativistic physics. The new feature of relativistic physics is that "matter" particles (such as those constituting atoms) could be converted to non-matter forms of energy, such as light; or kinetic and potential energy (example: heat). However, this conversion does not affect the total mass of systems, since the latter forms of non-matter energy still retain their mass through any such conversion." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

AFAIK, the light from distant parts of the Universe doesn't care if the spaceship is coasting close to lightspeed or is in rest relative Earth. The distance that has been traveled by the light will still be the same since the photons themselves already propagates at c. But the light should be blue shifted to some degree due to the high speed relative our view from Earth. Also since the ship will be further out in space in one direction it will be able to see further out than we can observe at the same time, here on Earth in that direction. However when the spaceship returns to Earth with the photo, the image in it has already reached us, since those photons would bypass and outrun the ship. Ergo, it's easier to stay here and wait. As time goes by we will be able to see further and further into the Universe until the accelerated expansion takes the upper hand and distant stars will start to faint and disappear from our sky. In a very distant future the Local Virgo Supercluster might be everything there is possible to observe from our location inside the Milky Way. "Galaxies outside the Local Supercluster are no longer detectable Assuming that dark energy continues to make the universe expand at an accelerating rate, 2×1012 (2 trillion) years from now, all galaxies outside the Local Supercluster will be red-shifted to such an extent that even gamma rays they emit will have wavelengths longer than the size of the observable universe of the time. Therefore, these galaxies will no longer be detectable in any way." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Freeze

I don't think the last statement is quite correct. ... An added dark energy term is needed to model the observed acceleration of this expansion. Yes, I worded that sentence badly, Dark Energy is only needed for the acceleration and not for the expansion itself. (Have edited my post to correct the last statement.)

Sure thing, our models will change and adapt to new discoveries and observations. But the Universe is by definition the totality of everything that exists. If there is something outside of our visual range then it is also included to the Universe as whole. Our observable universe on the other hand, is likely only a very small portion of the Universe but everything outside it, known or unknown, belongs to the Universe by current definition. Something out there could have a greater gravitational force but it would not be able to pull our visible universe apart according to observations, since every distant object are receding from us equally in all directions. If there where something out there able to act on objects inside our visible part of the Universe it would pull those objects in its own direction and not in every possible direction away from us. Dark Energy is needed to explain why all very distant objects are moving accelerating away from us, which they do equally in every direction we look. (Edited to fix I ME's remark below.)

The Big Bang did not take place at a special location, instead the Big Bang theory is about all space being located inside a smaller and denser Universe where the space rapidly expanded, bringing matter apart very fast. Nothing is going away from the Big Bang since the Big Bang happened everywhere inside the Universe, to all of space in all directions. From our perspective here on Earth the Big Bang happened all around us and is still happening. There are no parts moving backwards, all parts are moving outward, away from each other, the only direction pointing backwards toward the ignition of the Big Bang is backwards in time, towards the distant past. The direction we are moving in according to the initial time of the Big Bang are thus into the future. The Big Bang "The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our Universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Misconceptions about the Big Bang "The key to avoiding the misunderstandings is not to take the term “big bang” too literally. The big bang was not a bomb that went off in the center of the universe and hurled matter outward into a preexisting void. Rather it was an explosion of space itself that happened everywhere, similar to the way the expansion of the surface of a balloon happens everywhere on the surface." http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

"New Record! Ancient Galaxy is Most Distant Thing in Space An ancient galaxy has broken the record for the most distant point in the sky known to date, with its light taking roughly 13.1 billion years to reach Earth. This galaxy may provide insight into what the first stars were like and how they influenced the formation of the universe, researchers said. The new record-holder is named UDFy-38135539 and contains roughly a billion stars that would have formed within 600 million years of the Big Bang, which scientists think started the universe 13.7 billion years ago." http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/most-distant-galaxy-discovered-101020.html

If the gravity of the pieces is strong enough compared to the exraction speed they will contract before they reach the ground but even if not their separation speed would still decrease due to gravity slowing down the extraction. If all the pieces in the Universe where moving uniformly in one direction towards a gigantic ground we would be able to notice. If gravity was stronger below us and weaker on the sides we would be able to observe this difference. If all objects in the Universe where pulled by gravity towards a gigantic ground below us, with such strength that objects closer to the ground than us would accelerate away from us and objects at our distance would accelerate away from objects further from the ground, then we would be able to confirm the existence of this ground, even if it was beyond our observational range, by observating our neighbours and measuring their acceleration and uniform direction of movement. According to our observations all very distant objects, in every direction around us are moving away from us equally, except for our local velocity towards the Great Attractor. Our observations of the Universe does not match your model of all objects falling uniformly in one direction towards a gigantic ground.

Does not gravitational interactions predicted from general relativity, like gravitational waves or frame dragging, remove energy from the system?

Sure, all you have to do is to completely remove friction and totally shield off gravity... B) Perpetual motion devices are physically impossible in terms of our current understanding of the laws of physics. "There is an undisputed scientific consensus that perpetual motion violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

No, gravity pulls objects together but dark energy seem to push objects apart by increasing/rescaling the distance between them. If gravity was pulling on a group of balls or parts of one ball such that the distance between them would increase, then an observer on one of the balls/piece in the middle could measure his speed relative the surrounding balls/pieces an know in what direction his ball/piece where going. But we should if we where pulled by gravity, where is the source of gravity pulling the Universe apart located? AFAIK we are able to measure our individual speed and calculate that we will collide and perhaps merge with Andromeda in about ~4.5 billion years and that our galaxy, the Milky Way is together with all the other galaxies in the Virgo Super Cluster, pulled towards the Great Attractor but we will never reach it because the distance is increasing much faster.

Gravity is acting in the opposite direction of expansion. Gravity should cause Universe to contract but instead recent observations reveals that it is expanding with an accelerated rate, so there must be an opposing force stronger than gravity acting on Universe on large scales. ----- Dark Energy is a hypothetical explanation of recent observations that the Universe undergoes an accelerating expansion. We currently don't know the cause or origins of this force. If we use the analogy with the football then the ball rises fast first but eventually start to slow down and eventually starts to fall back down towards the ground with accelerating speed. So the Universe would start with rapid expansion which slows down and eventually the Universe starts to contract with accelerating rate. The problem is that the slowing down of the expansion stalled after billions of years and is now on the contrary speeding up. The football did not reach the expected turning point but instead it is now accelerating away from the ground with higher and higher speed. Gravity is no longer able to cause the ball to return to the ground. ----- Dark Matter is a different phenomena that is about matter we can't observe directly but we know something is there because we can observe the effect of its gravity on the surroundings.

I think if these holes do exists then they are probably not only very small in size they are likely also very short in time, any signal passing through would therefor come from such a close future or past that they wouldn't be distinguable from normal signals. Check out Professor Ronald Mallett, he is trying to build a time machine with circulating laser beams that he thinks could be used to receive messages from the future. One of many newsarticles: http://www.physorg.com/news63371210.html Home Page of Ronald L. Mallet: http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~mallett/main/main.htm Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett

Transformer A transformer is a device that transfers electrical energy from one circuit to another through inductively coupled conductors—the transformer's coils. A varying current in the first or primary winding creates a varying magnetic flux in the transformer's core and thus a varying magnetic field through the secondary winding. This varying magnetic field induces a varying electromotive force (EMF) or "voltage" in the secondary winding. This effect is called mutual induction. If a load is connected to the secondary, an electric current will flow in the secondary winding and electrical energy will be transferred from the primary circuit through the transformer to the load. In an ideal transformer, the induced voltage in the secondary winding (VS) is in proportion to the primary voltage (VP), and is given by the ratio of the number of turns in the secondary (NS) to the number of turns in the primary (NP) as follows: [math]\frac{V_S}{V_P}=\frac{N_S}{N_P}[/math] By appropriate selection of the ratio of turns, a transformer thus allows an alternating current (AC) voltage to be "stepped up" by making NS greater than NP, or "stepped down" by making NS less than NP. Energy losses An ideal transformer would have no energy losses, and would be 100% efficient. In practical transformers energy is dissipated in the windings, core, and surrounding structures. Larger transformers are generally more efficient, and those rated for electricity distribution usually perform better than 98%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer

The old user title ladder structure: Lepton (Minimum Posts: 0) Quark (Minimum Posts: 10) Meson (Minimum Posts: 50) Baryon (Minimum Posts: 100) Atom (Minimum Posts: 200) Molecule (Minimum Posts: 400) Protist (Minimum Posts: 750) Organism (Minimum Posts: 1000) Primate (Minimum Posts: 1500) Scientist (Minimum Posts: 3000) Genius (Minimum Posts: 5000) From this old thread: User Titles But we seem to be allowed to put in our own custom titles now with the new SFN, in Profile under Member Title.

IMHO, I don't think that eclecticcowboy is asking for different problems or other issues with Big Bang, the OP seems very specific and clearly asks for a scientific explanation why objects or bound systems like galaxies don't expand like space do, in accepted scientific cosmology.

That doesn't help your case, you still have friction and currents flowing in the fluid acting on the objects, it's still a tea-leaf phenomen. If you want to show that "it's all about deceleration" then you need to find a way to reduce other influences to a minimum.

It seems possible to boost your own reputation by giving credit to your own posts, is that intended? (I ask since the +/- feature appears on them too, but not on posts already voted on.) [EDIT] Ok, I tested on this post and my vote seems to have gone through... I think you will need to prevent this or the reputation system will inflate.