RISING RAISIN BREAD, UP AGAIN???

[rigney]

I know! It has been mentioned, theorized, calculated and catalogued into the archives of civilized learning. But how true is it in practicality? The raisin bread theory, that is. Why do scientist insist on telling me there was no center to the universe at its conception. Anyway, in the beginning there was supposedly a Big Bang. Don't quote me verbatim, but in the first few trillionts of a second, the universe was at a temperature of perhaps billions + or - degrees F. and had grown to the size of an orange. In the next few trillionths of that second, it had grown to the size of our solar system, or galaxy, not sure which. During the next five minutes, it had stretched (grown) into light years! Since nothing supposedly can surpass light speed, am I being snookered into believing this theory. And then the statement, "there is no center" to this grand design!, I find the statement disingenuous. Even a loaf or raisin bread has a center. Then to say that galaxies are moving away from one another at some horrendous speed, shakes me. Now, that speed is declared to be faster than that of light Why? Because of using Doppler Shift to determine it? C'mon, we can't see around the next curve let alone make such assertions. If! I say if, there was a Big Bang, it surely must have had some symmetry. A heat like that proposed, must have been irradiated spherically at the onset, come hell or high water. There is much I don't know and even more that I haven't the slightest idea how to approach. but if you can stand my obstinate nature and allow for a little conflict in the difference of reasoning, write something down. Perhaps with a bunch of you in the discussion, I may even learn something.

Edited January 20, 2011 by rigney

[Fuzzwood]

Sorry to do this, but:

 

par·a·graph (pr-grf)n.1. A distinct division of written or printed matter that begins on a new, usually indented line, consists of one or more sentences, and typically deals with a single thought or topic or quotes one speaker's continuous words.

[rigney]

Sorry to do this, but:

 

par·a·graph (pr-grf)n.1. A distinct division of written or printed matter that begins on a new, usually indented line, consists of one or more sentences, and typically deals with a single thought or topic or quotes one speaker's continuous words.

 

I see your point, but please don't jostle my illiteracy. I was just trying to make several statements at the same time. What I have written was not to be considered a thesis or theology, merely a statement with questions. If you have been on this forum very long, I'm sure you understand. But for now, save the english 101. Edited January 20, 2011 by rigney

[Moontanman]

I know! It has been mentioned, theorized, calculated and catalogued into the archives of civilized learning. But how true is it in practicality? The raisin bread theory, that is. Why do scientist insist on telling me there was no center to the universe at its conception. Anyway, in the beginning there was supposedly a Big Bang.

 

I disagree with that assumption, besides the totally misinterpreted idea of everything exploding into something i think brane theory will abolish our silly idea of a point big bang.

 

Don't quote me verbatim, but in the first few trillionts of a second, the universe was at a temperature of perhaps billions + or - degrees F. and had grown to the size of an orange. In the next few trillionths of that second, it had grown to the size of our solar system, or galaxy, not sure which. During the next five minutes, it had stretched (grown) into light years! Since nothing supposedly can surpass light speed, am I being snookered into believing this theory.

 

If you are going to believe in the "big bang" then you need to believe in inflation to justify how big the universe is today, it doesn't mean anything is going faster than light, space it's self is expanding faster than light not the matter in it.

 

And then the statement, "there is no center" to this grand design!, I find the statement disingenuous. Even a loaf or raisin bread has a center.

 

Find the center of the surface of a sphere.... No center to the universe in the same way.

 

Then to say that galaxies are moving away from one another at some horrendous speed, shakes me. Now, that speed is declared to be faster than that of light Why? Because of usinf Doppler Shift to determine it? C'mon, we can't see around the next curve let alone make such assertions. If! I say if, there was a Big Bang, it surely must have had some symmetry. A heat like that proposed, must have been irradiated spherically at the onset, come hell or high water. There is much I don't know and even more that I haven't the slightest idea how to approach. but if you can stand my obstinate nature and allow for a little conflict in the difference of reasoning, write something down. Perhaps with a bunch of you in the discussion, I may even learn something.

 

Again, the galaxies are not moving away from each other, the space between them is expanding, there is a real difference.

[md65536]

Over and over on these forums I'm seeing something I will call "Proof by 'I don't understand it'", which is that some theory doesn't make sense to me and therefore it must be wrong. Relativity, crop circles, 9/11... it all "can't be a certain way cause it's unimaginable." This is the same type of evidence used to support creationism.

 

I would advise balance. It's not ideal to either accept something you don't understand and move past it while questioning nothing, or to reject something you don't understand and remain blocked by it. If you learn about all these things, you'll see why they're believed to be right, and then you can focus with a better understanding on fixing something you think is wrong.

 

 

Unfortunately I don't know much about the topics you mentioned. I once read on wikipedia something about how thermodynamic systems can be described as having topology but no geometry. As usual, I can't seem to find the link, now. But I have a feeling that if you gained a thorough understanding of topology, you would be able to conceive of all the puzzling things you mentioned, without having to compare them to geometric analogies like a loaf of bread. That's not an answer, but I think it's a clue.

 

If you are going to believe in the "big bang" then you need to believe in inflation to justify how big the universe is today, it doesn't mean anything is going faster than light, space it's self is expanding faster than light not the matter in it.

In special relativity, there is nothing that says that extremely rapid acceleration is impossible. Say you are 1 lightyear away from Earth, and "instantly" accelerate to about 0.866c (gamma = 2). Then Earth is now 0.5 lightyears away from you. It hasn't "moved half a light year", but rather space in between you and Earth has contracted.

 

Is that exactly the same principle as space inflating without anything moving faster than c?

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

This is my understanding of it, space/time is expanding, the objects embedded in space/time are not moving or expanding. I don't mean that nothing moves but in relation to the apparent expansion of the universe the objects are not moving the same way an accelerated object moves. No acceleration is being applied to the galaxies in the same way as a bullet or a rocket.

[rigney]

This is my understanding of it, space/time is expanding, the objects embedded in space/time are not moving or expanding. I don't mean that nothing moves but in relation to the apparent expansion of the universe the objects are not moving the same way an accelerated object moves. No acceleration is being applied to the galaxies in the same way as a bullet or a rocket.

 

I hope you're right! strings that is. Not trying to be objectionable, but how can planets zip around suns throughout a galaxy, all galaxys evidently, and at different speeds? Earth for instance orbits out sun at approx. 65 thousand mph. And galaxies, like our milky way rotate at half million miles per hour +. Yet galaxies throughout the universe is supposidly homogenously moving away from each at an exponential rate. The raisin bread thing I guess. But why? Why are galaxies moving expansionary away rather than explosively? I would think had there been a big bang, it would have been an explosion? Then, we have the super clusters trying to gobble up everything in sight due to gravitation. Again, why? If galaxies are moving subtly away from each other, how can a thing like super clusters exist? As much as I respect Einsteins genius, to me space/time is only two words separates by a /. I've read and read trying my best to understand it and can't. Perhaps I was just born to be ignorant? Keep up with the input. I may pick up on something eventually. Edited January 20, 2011 by rigney

[Spyman]

But why? Why are galaxies moving expansionary away rather than explosively?

We don't know "why", but our observations indicate that very distant objects are receding from us expansionary and not explosively and from these observations we can make different models of "how".

 

 

Why do scientist insist on telling me there was no center to the universe at its conception.

If one is accepting the Copernican principle then observations tells us that everything very distant is moving away from everthing else very distant equally in all directions, at a higher rates with bigger distances.

 

If one abandons the Copernican principle then you can put faith in a a different view with Earth in a central favored position and model an explosion with matter symmetrically moving outward from us in all directions.

 

Another view would be to interpret our observations differently and try to explain them with other phenomena than expanding space, like with for example Tired Light but so far all those models have been ruled out.

 

 

As much as I respect Einsteins genius, to me space/time is only two words separates by a /. I've read and read trying my best to understand it and can't.

From my limited understanding of the theory of Relativity, distances and durations are highly dynamical between different frames and as such different observers can measure different values simultaneously between two events, which I interpret as the observers have their rulers and clocks in different scales relative each others, depending on the differences in their frames.

 

 

I would think had there been a big bang, it would have been an explosion?

IMHO, the expansion is not ment to be viewed as the Universe growing into a surrounding emptyness with a boundary moving outwards faster than the speed of light, rather it is better viewed as the scale we use for measurements of distances is changing in relevance to other measurements.

 

 

Then to say that galaxies are moving away from one another at some horrendous speed, shakes me. Now, that speed is declared to be faster than that of light Why?

A tiny change on the scale of our rulers can make the Universe seem to grow faster than the speed of light when we talk about those huge distances and there is no direct limit on how fast the scale can change because the objects are not physically moving when space is expanding or contracting.

 

 

Then, we have the super clusters trying to gobble up everything in sight due to gravitation. Again, why? If galaxies are moving subtly away from each other, how can a thing like super clusters exist?

Gravity weakens fast with distance while expansion grows with it, so the logical conclusion is that on close ranges gravity wins and pulls objects closer, faster than what expansion is able to bring them apart but on large ranges expansion wins and brings objects apart faster than what gravity is able to pull them together.

Edited January 20, 2011 by Spyman

[swansont]

Since nothing supposedly can surpass light speed, am I being snookered into believing this theory.

 

 

Nothing has no problem going faster than the speed of light. It's something that can't. Massive particles are limited to traveling slower than c. Massless particles travel at c. Space is neither.

[michel123456]

Nothing has no problem going faster than the speed of light. It's something that can't. Massive particles are limited to traveling slower than c. Massless particles travel at c. Space is neither.

 

So you are saying that nothing can expand. Right?

[swansont]

Whatever space is, it's not a massive or massless particle.

[rigney]

Whatever space is, it's not a massive or massless particle.

 

I've spent the past three hours trying to discern the very logic of that statement and I can only say, "WOW". You in particular I refer this to. You may have even had a hand in writing some of this stuff. Regardless, I appreciate the wisdom that I see. Perhaps others haven't seen these clips, but they are nothing less than total knowledge. Me, I simply started too late.

 

 

Edited January 21, 2011 by rigney

[rigney]

I disagree with that assumption, besides the totally misinterpreted idea of everything exploding into something i think brane theory will abolish our silly idea of a point big bang.

 

 

 

If you are going to believe in the "big bang" then you need to believe in inflation to justify how big the universe is today, it doesn't mean anything is going faster than light, space it's self is expanding faster than light not the matter in it.

 

 

 

Find the center of the surface of a sphere.... No center to the universe in the same way.

 

 

 

Again, the galaxies are not moving away from each other, the space between them is expanding, there is a real difference.

If you are going to believe in the "big bang" then you need to believe in inflation to justify how big the universe is today, it doesn't mean anything is going faster than light, space it's self is expanding faster than light not the matter in it.

 

I disagree with that assumption, besides the totally misinterpreted idea of everything exploding into something i think brane theory will abolish our silly idea of a point big bang.

 

 

 

If you are going to believe in the "big bang" then you need to believe in inflation to justify how big the universe is today, it doesn't mean anything is going faster than light, space it's self is expanding faster than light not the matter in it.

 

 

 

Find the center of the surface of a sphere.... No center to the universe in the same way.

 

 

 

Again, the galaxies are not moving away from each other, the space between them is expanding, there is a real difference.

 

What difference does it make? If I'm jumping up and down on a hot stove, or if the stove is bouncing up and down to meet my feet, is the distance or speed an more or less? Were you able to connect with the articles I answered SwansonT with? There was more relevance in those articles than I've ever known about the universe in my entire life. Edited January 23, 2011 by rigney

[Moontanman]

If you are going to believe in the "big bang" then you need to believe in inflation to justify how big the universe is today, it doesn't mean anything is going faster than light, space it's self is expanding faster than light not the matter in it.

 

What is the difference between me jumping up and down on a hot stove, or the stove bouncing up and down to meet my feet? Speed is speed.

 

 

The idea of space expanding has nothing to do with stoves or jumping men (I wonder how many others here have ever even seen a real "Hot" stove) Take two stoves, both are stationary in respect to each other, increase the space between them but don't move them, yes that's the idea, they get further apart even though both are stationary in relation to the space around them. The galaxies are not really moving in space, space is expanding between them.

[StringJunky]

The idea of space expanding has nothing to do with stoves or jumping men (I wonder how many others here have ever even seen a real "Hot" stove) Take two stoves, both are stationary in respect to each other, increase the space between them but don't move them, yes that's the idea, they get further apart even though both are stationary in relation to the space around them. The galaxies are not really moving in space, space is expanding between them.

 

Minor correction..the space between galaxy clusters is increasing....locally within cluster groups the gravitational forces between the neighbouring galaxies overwhelms the expansion.

[rigney]

The idea of space expanding has nothing to do with stoves or jumping men (I wonder how many others here have ever even seen a real "Hot" stove) Take two stoves, both are stationary in respect to each other, increase the space between them but don't move them, yes that's the idea, they get further apart even though both are stationary in relation to the space around them. The galaxies are not really moving in space, space is expanding between them.

 

I can't really argue the point other than to ask, why are we spinning (the Milky Way), that is, at 600,000 mph and moving toward a super cluster of other galaxies at some unknown speed, if everything is just expanding like the raisin bread? Being gullible, someone will probably prove to me that it is the effects of gravity. Edited January 23, 2011 by rigney

[Moontanman]

I can't really argue the point other than to ask, why are we spinning (the Milky Way), that is, at 600,000 mph and moving toward a super cluster of other galaxies at some unknown speed, if everything is just expanding like the raisin bread? Being gullible, someone will probably prove to me that it is the effects of gravity.

 

That's a good question but I think StringJunkey answered it pretty good. The Great Attractor, which is what the area everything is moving toward is called, is something so far away we cannot see it but it is massive and the gravity still attracts us even while space is expanding all around the galactic clusters. No one really knows what it is or why we are going toward it. Space can still expand in all directions and still be moving more in one direction than others.

[StringJunky]

I can't really argue the point other than to ask, awhy are we spinning (the Milky Way), that is, at 600,000 mph and moving toward a super cluster of other galaxies t some unknown speed, if everything is just expanding like the raisin bread? Being gullible, someone will probably prove to me that it is the effects of gravity.

 

I might be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that the direction individual non-gravitationally bound clusters move in is essentially random so some will be moving towards each other and some away from each other but the ones headed towards each other may never get close enough to gravitationally connect if the rate of expansion exceeds their velocity towards each other.

[rigney]

Minor correction..the space between galaxy clusters is increasing....locally within cluster groups the gravitational forces between the neighbouring galaxies overwhelms the expansion.

 

I agree, most galaxies move farther apart at an exponential constant, just not exactly sure why, yet? After watched the two videos, there is conjecture. But I thought the presentations were well done and very informative. Edited January 23, 2011 by rigney

[zapatos]

Minor correction..the space between galaxy clusters is increasing....locally within cluster groups the gravitational forces between the neighbouring galaxies overwhelms the expansion.

I understand that expansion would not cause neighboring galaxies to become further apart, and that this is due to the gravity of nearby galaxies overcoming the force of expansion. But what is keeping space from expanding and flowing past the galaxies that are gravtationally bound?

 

Imagine if you had two balls connected by a tether floating is a gas. The gas could expand and flow past the balls without the balls getting further apart.

 

So in the case of cosmic expansion, would you say that the gravity of the bound galaxies keeps the space between them from expanding (that is, in some way acts upon space and stops the physical process of expansion), or that the space can still expand (that is, become less dense) without overcoming the gravitational bond between the galaxies?

[Spyman]

I understand that expansion would not cause neighboring galaxies to become further apart, and that this is due to the gravity of nearby galaxies overcoming the force of expansion. But what is keeping space from expanding and flowing past the galaxies that are gravtationally bound?

 

Imagine if you had two balls connected by a tether floating is a gas. The gas could expand and flow past the balls without the balls getting further apart.

 

So in the case of cosmic expansion, would you say that the gravity of the bound galaxies keeps the space between them from expanding (that is, in some way acts upon space and stops the physical process of expansion), or that the space can still expand (that is, become less dense) without overcoming the gravitational bond between the galaxies?

Space is not a fluid flowing past objects, the geometry of space is expanding/contracting and the geometry is the cause of gravity.

 

Without an accelerating expansion the geometry of space would be shaped by local objects and as such the space between them would not expand, but with the discovery of an accelerating expansion a tiny force is added, which is thought to push apart even locally bound objects, slightly increasing their distance with a very small amount, until they settle into a new equilibrium state.

 

Local perturbations

The expansion of space is sometimes described as a force which acts to push objects apart. Though this is an accurate description of the effect of the cosmological constant, it is not an accurate picture of the phenomenon of expansion in general. For much of the universe's history the expansion has been due mainly to inertia. The matter in the very early universe was flying apart for unknown reasons (most likely as a result of cosmic inflation) and has simply continued to do so, though at an ever-decreasing rate due to the attractive effect of gravity. In addition to slowing the overall expansion, gravity causes local clumping of matter into stars and galaxies. These stars and galaxies do not subsequently expand, there being no force compelling them to do so. There is no essential difference between the inertial expansion of the universe and the inertial separation of nearby objects in a vacuum; the former is simply a large-scale extrapolation of the latter. A uniform local "explosion" of matter can be locally described by the FLRW geometry, the same geometry which describes the expansion of the universe as a whole. In particular, general relativity predicts that light will move at the speed c with respect to the local motion of the exploding matter, a phenomenon analogous to frame dragging.

 

This situation changes somewhat with the introduction of a cosmological constant. A cosmological constant has the effect of a repulsive force between objects which is proportional (not inversely proportional) to distance. Unlike inertia it actively "pulls" on objects which have clumped together under the influence of gravity, and even on individual atoms. However this does not cause the objects to grow steadily or to disintegrate; unless they are very weakly bound, they will simply settle into an equilibrium state which is slightly (undetectably) larger than it would otherwise have been. As the universe expands and the matter in it thins, the gravitational attraction decreases (since it is proportional to the density), while the cosmological repulsion increases; thus the ultimate fate of the ΛCDM universe is a near vacuum expanding at an ever increasing rate under the influence of the cosmological constant. However the only locally visible effect of the accelerating expansion is the disappearance (by runaway redshift) of distant galaxies; gravitationally bound objects like the Milky Way do not expand."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Edited January 24, 2011 by Spyman

[rigney]

Space is not a fluid flowing past objects, the geometry of space is expanding/contracting and the geometry is the cause of gravity.

 

Without an accelerating expansion the geometry of space would be shaped by local objects and as such the space between them would not expand, but with the discovery of an accelerating expansion a tiny force is added, which is thought to push apart even locally bound objects, slightly increasing their distance with a very small amount, until they settle into a new equilibrium state.

 

Local perturbations

The expansion of space is sometimes described as a force which acts to push objects apart. Though this is an accurate description of the effect of the cosmological constant, it is not an accurate picture of the phenomenon of expansion in general. For much of the universe's history the expansion has been due mainly to inertia. The matter in the very early universe was flying apart for unknown reasons (most likely as a result of cosmic inflation) and has simply continued to do so, though at an ever-decreasing rate due to the attractive effect of gravity. In addition to slowing the overall expansion, gravity causes local clumping of matter into stars and galaxies. These stars and galaxies do not subsequently expand, there being no force compelling them to do so. There is no essential difference between the inertial expansion of the universe and the inertial separation of nearby objects in a vacuum; the former is simply a large-scale extrapolation of the latter. A uniform local "explosion" of matter can be locally described by the FLRW geometry, the same geometry which describes the expansion of the universe as a whole. In particular, general relativity predicts that light will move at the speed c with respect to the local motion of the exploding matter, a phenomenon analogous to frame dragging.

 

This situation changes somewhat with the introduction of a cosmological constant. A cosmological constant has the effect of a repulsive force between objects which is proportional (not inversely proportional) to distance. Unlike inertia it actively "pulls" on objects which have clumped together under the influence of gravity, and even on individual atoms. However this does not cause the objects to grow steadily or to disintegrate; unless they are very weakly bound, they will simply settle into an equilibrium state which is slightly (undetectably) larger than it would otherwise have been. As the universe expands and the matter in it thins, the gravitational attraction decreases (since it is proportional to the density), while the cosmological repulsion increases; thus the ultimate fate of the ΛCDM universe is a near vacuum expanding at an ever increasing rate under the influence of the cosmological constant. However the only locally visible effect of the accelerating expansion is the disappearance (by runaway redshift) of distant galaxies; gravitationally bound objects like the Milky Way do not expand."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

 

With my answer in #12, I incorporated 2 videos that probably enlightened me more about our universe than anything I have ever read or seen. If the Higgs boson can be found as more than a plausible theory, the whole mystery of how things began for us "may start" to close. A professor at Berkley, Kim Greist, did a tremendous job (40) plus mins. of explaining the nothingness of space and why nothing isn't simply nothing. I've only been at this game since last May and realize that, with those two presentations; just how little I knew about our universe. The seond video by Mr. White, a Phd was just as informative, addressing the centerless universe. If you havn't seen them, watch; they are both worth while and doesn't even involve 1st. grade math. Whew! Edited January 24, 2011 by rigney

[zapatos]

Space is not a fluid flowing past objects, the geometry of space is expanding/contracting and the geometry is the cause of gravity.

 

Without an accelerating expansion the geometry of space would be shaped by local objects and as such the space between them would not expand, but with the discovery of an accelerating expansion a tiny force is added, which is thought to push apart even locally bound objects, slightly increasing their distance with a very small amount, until they settle into a new equilibrium state.

Thank you for the answer.

 

I guess I was looking at gravity and dark energy as acting independently; that is, mass from galaxies in a locally bound cluster were acting on each other to keep the galaxies bound, and dark energy was acting on space to cause the expansion of space.

 

It now looks to me as if I should be thinking of it in terms of both the mass of galaxies and dark energy are acting on the geometry of space, and that in locally bound systems, the impact on the geometry of space from the mass in galaxies overwhelms the impact on the geometry of space from dark energy.

 

Does that sound correct?

 

As a side question, does mass and dark energy physically alter space? What I'm wondering is if changing the geometry of space is a physical change that can be measured, or if it is a mathematical concept. If it is a physical change, then does that mean that theoretically we could do a test on a volume of space and tell how much the geometry has changed due to expansion?

 

Thanks.

Edited January 25, 2011 by zapatos

[Spyman]

I guess I was looking at gravity and dark energy as acting independently; that is, mass from galaxies in a locally bound cluster were acting on each other to keep the galaxies bound, and dark energy was acting on space to cause the expansion of space.

 

It now looks to me as if I should be thinking of it in terms of both the mass of galaxies and dark energy are acting on the geometry of space, and that in locally bound systems, the impact on the geometry of space from the mass in galaxies overwhelms the impact on the geometry of space from dark energy.

 

Does that sound correct?

Well, we truly doesn't know what Dark Energy is and how it expands space, but the current standard model of cosmology includes a cosmological constant that can be described as 'acting repulsive'. So as I interpret it, that sounds correct, but it may change when we find out more about Dark Energy.

 

 

As a side question, does mass and dark energy physically alter space? What I'm wondering is if changing the geometry of space is a physical change that can be measured, or if it is a mathematical concept. If it is a physical change, then does that mean that theoretically we could do a test on a volume of space and tell how much the geometry has changed due to expansion?

Ok, lets first remove Dark Energy from the question, does mass alter space? Is the change of geometry a physical change that can be measured?

 

Depending on how you define 'space' you can get different answers but when space is mentioned I correlate it with properties as metric geometry. Modern physics describes gravitation with the curvature of spacetime and a change of gravity can be tested, the mathematical model fits the reality to the limits of our observational measurements.

 

We can measure distances and we can measure gravitational potentials and make a map of the geometry, but we can not directly measure 'space' itself.

 

We could send out two spaceprobes to a large distance from each other in a big void and then accelerate them until they are at rest with the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. When they both are at rest with the CMBR they should also be at rest with each other, so a very precise measurement of the redshift in light signals sent between them should tell if and how much the geometry has changed.

 

Another way to test could be to measure hot and cold spots on the CMBR that are aligned with large mass or big emtiness since the accelerated expansion causes photons to gain or lose energy when they pass during the change:

 

Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe, and has recently been detected at high significance by Ho et al. and Giannantonio et al.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

 

Accelerated expansion due to dark energy causes even strong large-scale potential wells (superclusters) and hills (voids) to decay over the time it takes a photon to travel through them. A photon gets a kick of energy going into a potential well (a supercluster), and it keeps some of that energy after it exits, after the well has been stretched out and shallowed. Similarly, a photon has to expend energy entering a supervoid, but will not get all of it back upon exiting the slightly squashed potential hill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Sachs-Wolfe_effect#Late-time_integrated_Sachs.E2.80.93Wolfe_effect

Edited January 26, 2011 by Spyman