Spyman Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 This might be stupid to say, but what if the universe is really expanding more than the speed of light. If it is going faster than the speed of light, and nothing travels faster than light, then we wouldn't be able to observe the expansion, therefor calling space infinite. That's just want I thing. I can't imagine something infinite. But then, if space isn't infinite, then what is holding space, or the multiverse? Very confusing subject... While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, it places no theoretical constraint on changes to the scale of space itself. It is thus possible for two objects to be stationary or moving at speeds below that of light, and yet to become separated in space by more than the distance light could have travelled, which can suggest the objects travelled faster than light. For example there are stars which may be expanding away from us (or each other) faster than the speed of light, and this is true for any object that is more than approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs away from us. We can still see such objects because the universe in the past was expanding more slowly than it is today, so the ancient light being received from these objects is still able to reach us, though if the expansion continues unabated there will come a time that we will never see the light from such objects being produced today (on a so-called "space-like slice of spacetime") because space itself is expanding between Earth and the source faster than their light can reach us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Alan McDougall Posted January 15, 2014 Author Posted January 15, 2014 This might be stupid to say, but what if the universe is really expanding more than the speed of light. If it is going faster than the speed of light, and nothing travels faster than light, then we wouldn't be able to observe the expansion, therefor calling space infinite. That's just want I thing. I can't imagine something infinite. But then, if space isn't infinite, then what is holding space, or the multiverse? Very confusing subject... Space which is not matter can expand faster than the speed of light, nothing consisting of matter (an object) can travel through space faster than C.
kristalris Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) As I understand it our visible space is viewed by astronomers in general as an expanding half backed flat space cake with raisins in it. The raisins depicting the galaxies. We are in the middle. Then we have this cake as part of an expanding in part invisible balloon having the skin of the balloon thus a thickness. Difficult to see like the non flat earth is also difficult to spot. This then would be at odds with the existence of a multiverse that most scientists also hold for true. Being probable because a one off is improbable. But then somewhere along the line they must collide if they all are expanding. The question is thus does the OP already provide a paradigm shift in so far that it is thus possible to see the same evidence in a different way: i.e. a non expanding universe in a stable multi-verse. It only seemingly expands because the galaxies are actually going places, yet all in the same direction (i.e. outward of the balloon) in different stages of acceleration. When it is a non expanding balloon then you will observe angular momentum, that might be the same as the difference in acceleration, thus creating the illusion of an expanding universe. Which is consistent with the observation as I understand it that the time frames don't exactly add up => we are all on the move relative to each other. The fact that we are in the middle of the cake could then be explained because it takes time for life to form and that it will also be snuffed out before we get out of the middle of the cake, being the skin of the balloon. That we get snuffed out, is consistent with the rise in entropy we observe and the current view in science. Edited January 17, 2014 by kristalris
swansont Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 The cake and balloon analogies are distinct; you use either one or the other. The shortcoming of the cake analogy you have to discard the notion of there being a middle, since there are not supposed to be any boundaries. Which is why some people prefer the balloon, since there is no "middle" to the balloon. But the shortcoming of the balloon analogy is that it's only in 2D (the surface) rather than 3D.
Strange Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 As I understand it our visible space is viewed by astronomers in general as an expanding half backed flat space cake with raisins in it. The raisins depicting the galaxies. We are in the middle. We appear to be in the middle of the cake because the cake is larger than we can see, so we are in the center of the part we can see. Everyone will see themsleves in the center of their "observable cake". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe an expanding in part invisible balloon having the skin of the balloon thus a thickness. The balloon analogy assumes the balloon surface represents the universe (a 2D analogy; the thickness of the balloon is ignored. As is the interior and exterior.) But then somewhere along the line they must collide if they all are expanding. If there are multipkle universes (pure speculation) then they are probly expanding away from one another so they will never collide (otherwise, they woul;dn't be separate universes, but just part of this one). The question is thus does the OP already provide a paradigm shift in so far that it is thus possible to see the same evidence in a different way: i.e. a non expanding universe in a stable multi-verse. No.
hypervalent_iodine Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 ! Moderator Note As per my mod note here, this thread started to go quite a bit off topic with kristalris' addition of bubble cosmology and the lengthy discussion that ensued. Please could members not try and derail this thread again.
Recommended Posts