Mainstream physics has been delighted to ignore/abandon essential conservation laws when talking about the expanding universe. It's kinda weird, I tried publishing a paper on it recently and it was not received well. In general, if conservation laws are to hold, expansion must be balanced with [eventual] contraction, is that not obvious? Apparently it was quite contentious to say until... this article?
Analysis indicates that the universe’s expansion is not accelerating
51–60 of 218 posts
Re: Analysis indicates that the universe’s expansion is not accelerating
#52[dead]
Re: Analysis indicates that the universe’s expansion is not accelerating
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> According to some calculations, it should in principle be possible to colonize the entire observable universe in less than a hundred million years ...what? That doesn't seem right, just from a really quick gut check it looks like the observable universe has a radius of 45.7 billion light years [0]. Even if the universe wasn't expanding nobody could get to everything any faster than that number of years right? Maybe…
>> According to some calculations, it should in principle be possible to colonize the entire observable universe in less than a hundred million years > ...what? That doesn't seem right, just from a really quick gut check it looks like the observable universe has a radius of 45.7 billion light years [0]. I guess it depends on whose hundred million years you're talking about: the colonists' or those who stay home's. I…
You need ridiculous speeds for time dilation to really kick in though. Mathematically, it starts as soon as an object moves. But if a spaceship travels at 90 % of light speed (0.9 c), their local time moves just approximately at half speed compared to local time on earth. A year for the astronauts is just over 2 years on earth.
At 0.995 c, the ship clock runs 10 x slower.
At 0.999 c, 22 x slower. Then if you push the turbo button to 0.9999 c, 71 x slower.
The fastest man-made object to date is the Parker Solar Probe, at 0.059 c.
Re: Analysis indicates that the universe’s expansion is not accelerating
#54Mainstream physics has been delighted to ignore/abandon essential conservation laws when talking about the expanding universe. It's kinda weird, I tried publishing a paper on it recently and it was not received well. In general, if conservation laws are to hold, expansion must be balanced with [eventual] contraction, is that not obvious? Apparently it was quite contentious to say until... this article?
Noether's theorem tells us when we would expect conservation laws to hold and when we would expect them to fail. In the case of global energy conservation, there would have to be a global time invariance associated with the spacetime. But this is manifestly not the case in an expanding universe. It is generally not even possible to have a well defined notion of global energy in a dynamic spacetime.
Re: Analysis indicates that the universe’s expansion is not accelerating
#55Mainstream physics has been delighted to ignore/abandon essential conservation laws when talking about the expanding universe. It's kinda weird, I tried publishing a paper on it recently and it was not received well. In general, if conservation laws are to hold, expansion must be balanced with [eventual] contraction, is that not obvious? Apparently it was quite contentious to say until... this article?
No, the assumption was that dark energy is a property of space itself so it does not conserve energy at all in an expanding space.
Also this discovery does still is being explained with dark energy (albeit time varying …) so it still does not assume global energy conservation.
Re: Analysis indicates that the universe’s expansion is not accelerating
#56I would not be surprised if the universe was somewhat elastic, expands and then contracts and then expands ad infinitam. After all, existence in itself is irrefutable and cannot not exist by definition. If we subscribe to a theory of the multiverse, set theory, likelihood, and interaction driven evolution based on gradient type of fundamental laws. Locally changing. Obviously everything sharing a fundamental quality…
Eventually we will find that the heat death of the universe and the big bang are the same thing, since the totality of the universe is always a oneness, then from the universal perspective the infinitely small and infinitely large are the same thing (one), then they by nature bleed into (and define) each other like yin and yang.
You may appreciate this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology
Re: Analysis indicates that the universe’s expansion is not accelerating
#57Mainstream physics has been delighted to ignore/abandon essential conservation laws when talking about the expanding universe. It's kinda weird, I tried publishing a paper on it recently and it was not received well. In general, if conservation laws are to hold, expansion must be balanced with [eventual] contraction, is that not obvious? Apparently it was quite contentious to say until... this article?
I mean no disrespect, but are you a trained physicist, or at least familiar with the 'mainstream material'?
Because there is no shortage of 'crackpots' that have 'obvious' solutions to unsolved physics problems, and that want to publish papers about it.
Re: Analysis indicates that the universe’s expansion is not accelerating
#58I have a great deal of respect for the sciences but sometimes astronomy just feels like one giant guessing game: age of the universe, big bang starting as a joke and all the "first minute" timelines thereafter, dark energy and dark matter (code for we have no idea what it is) vastly outnumbering everything else, and now questioning the Nobel Prize-awarded universe expansion. Meanwhile, asteroids the size of buses+ ke…
That's a feature! If you want to be certain, you need religion, not science. And of course, the people concerned with tracking near-earth asteroids are not connected in any way with cosmology.
what? no. religion is not certain which is evidenced by the numerous sects of christianity with their own interpretations of the same book.
while science might not have a definitive answer for everything, they distinguish from fact and theory.
Re: Analysis indicates that the universe’s expansion is not accelerating
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
So wait, individual stars aren't getting further apart? Galaxies aren't getting "bigger"/more diffuse?
Galaxies have enough gravity to counteract the expansion of the universe.
So do we see the expansion cancelled out by the gravity, or do we only see the gravity?
I mean, is it
change = gravity
change = expansion - gravity