The expansion of universe?

[Almehdi]

Thanks, i think this last posts made it clear for me. My imaginary football field would simply not work... ..i know that dark matter and dark energy is not the same. Don't know where you saw that.. but it must have been misspelled

 

Ohh.. are there any calculations done on accelerating expansion speed versus mass gain of the universe?

Edited October 25, 2010 by Almehdi

[Spyman]

Ohh.. are there any calculations done on accelerating expansion speed versus mass gain of the universe?

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

[DanielC]

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.

 

Cosmology is not my field, but I certainly haven't hear anything about mass gain in the universe, other than the Steady State theory, which suggested that there was no Big Bang, but instead as the universe expands new matter is constantly create to fill up the empty space, so the universe always looks more or less the same. But that theory was debunked a very long time ago with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is predicted by the Big Bang, and cannot be explained by the steady state.

[Spyman]

Cosmology is not my field, but I certainly haven't hear anything about mass gain in the universe, other than the Steady State theory, which suggested that there was no Big Bang, but instead as the universe expands new matter is constantly create to fill up the empty space, so the universe always looks more or less the same. But that theory was debunked a very long time ago with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is predicted by the Big Bang, and cannot be explained by the steady state.

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" ?

 

...but to my understandig there has not been any observations of the slightest mass gain of the whole Universe.

...but I certainly haven't hear anything about mass gain in the universe...

Ohh.. are there any calculations done on accelerating expansion speed versus mass gain of the universe?

[DanielC]

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" ?

 

I was agreeing with your post.

[Almehdi]

Thanks again! It's good the world have smart people that understands so it can be translated to understandable words for us lesser knowledgable