JoeRoccoCassara Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 What is the exact explanation of the universe's expansion? The big bang, the expansion from one dot to everything we know, It has not stopped, but it has sped up, every atom is slowly moving further away from one another, and it seems that the further they get from each other, the faster they move. I believe that our universe is the fireball from which a collision of two infinitely cold and large parallel branes spawned, and that everything we see is as hot as fire to the branes that collided. I believe the expansion will stop when every atom is erased from existence. It has been proven that atoms do disappear, data is lost in black holes. I believe that this is because they dissipate and cool until they turn into what ever the void that existed before our universe was made out of. There is a more than great chance that I am wrong. modest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemon Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 I once heard a theory that the universe is acting like a rubber band that is being stretched out, and will eventually snap back to where it was, nothingness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeRoccoCassara Posted January 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 I once heard a theory that the universe is acting like a rubber band that is being stretched out, and will eventually snap back to where it was, nothingness. There could be more than one universe, and I don't mean parallel, I mean physical universes in this dimension, that are expanding larger or faster than ours, they could have been hotter after five years of expanding than our universe was in it's first Deci-second. (In my belief) I believe this because these explosions, AKA universes were caused by waves on the surface of the two parallel branes colliding, not just the flat surface, when two of these waves smacked up against each other they caused the explosion that we call, the universe. But there might be trillions of bigger waves that could have spawned bigger and hotter universes just on the surface of a single parallel brane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 It sounds like a hoax. The universe has no begin and no end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 There could be more than one universe, Does not make sense. If there are more than one universe, then each "universe" should not be called "universe", at most it can be only called "supper galaxy".The "universe" means everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Does not make sense. If there are more than one universe, then each "universe" should not be called "universe", at most it can be only called "supper galaxy".The "universe" means everything. How much bigger is your universe than my past light cone? -modest (getting out his ruler) :( “Long you live and high you'll fly and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemon Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 There could be more than one universe, and I don't mean parallel, I mean physical universes in this dimension, that are expanding larger or faster than ours, they could have been hotter after five years of expanding than our universe was in it's first Deci-second. (In my belief) I believe this because these explosions, AKA universes were caused by waves on the surface of the two parallel branes colliding, not just the flat surface, when two of these waves smacked up against each other they caused the explosion that we call, the universe. But there might be trillions of bigger waves that could have spawned bigger and hotter universes just on the surface of a single parallel brane. Also Known as the M Theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemon Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Does not make sense. If there are more than one universe, then each "universe" should not be called "universe", at most it can be only called "supper galaxy".The "universe" means everything. It means that, Our Universe is actually a membrane. we are surrounded by other membranes. Do some research into it, the M-Theory is really facsinating stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 How much bigger is your universe than my past light cone? My universe holds all stuffs you can name in the past, present and future, i.e., there is only one universe, no matter how big or small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 My universe holds all stuffs you can name in the past, present and futureWill it hold an infinite number of universes? "All that is and ever shall be is in that box.... And the box itself is probably worth something too."-Professor Farnsworth -modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Will it hold an infinite number of universes? -modest Whatever size it takes to hold everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Whatever size it takes to hold everything. Well, using a bit of logical deduction... If it must be big enough to hold an infinite number of universes, then it must be infinitely big. ;) But, what were we talking about... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrocuriousstudent Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Hmm. Just a thought. Space is just that... Empty space. What do we define as oour universe growing bigger? do we say that the borders of our universe are growing larger, our infinite universe? ok, thats a paradox, lets make it a little easier then. lets make our universe finite for this purpose. how can empty space get bigger. how can we define this. and back to how we define the growth of our universe, do we define it as the "borders" of our universe expanding, or the motions of the bodies in the universe moving outward? and in this definition, the universe isnt really expanding, it is static. it is simply the matter that is dispersing itself over a possible infinity. I dont know, I may be completely wrong, I just had to put this out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Hmm. Just a thought. Space is just that... Empty space. What do we define as oour universe growing bigger? do we say that the borders of our universe are growing larger, our infinite universe? ok, thats a paradox, lets make it a little easier then. lets make our universe finite for this purpose. how can empty space get bigger. how can we define this. and back to how we define the growth of our universe, do we define it as the "borders" of our universe expanding, or the motions of the bodies in the universe moving outward? and in this definition, the universe isnt really expanding, it is static. it is simply the matter that is dispersing itself over a possible infinity. I dont know, I may be completely wrong, I just had to put this out there. A common way to envision this is what's known as the "raisin cake model". This site does a great job of explaining this:WMAP Cosmology101: Formation of the Elements Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Astrocurious, it is enough to define space-time, independently of it being empty or not, as the "place" where events can happen. Then I don't see any more a problem in imaging empty space getting bigger. Peter, if you take the above definition of space-time as being equivalent to a definition of our universe, then can't you imagine another universe? It would simply be defined as a region in another space-time where events from our space-time can't happen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pie Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 Peter, I agree. The universe does sound like a hoex, and a fraud. According to quantum physics, light will change from a wave to a particle when it knows it is being wached. Dark matter may act like a wave being everywhere, yet when measured has very litttle hard matter pushing it. The universe looks hard and real. If the universe is a wave function, it may be an optical illusion, and much smaller in reality. Redshifts are real, and push phony distances of preceived reality that are not really real. The wave collapses when redshifts are measured, and pushes dark matter faster, and further apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted March 26, 2008 Report Share Posted March 26, 2008 According to quantum physics, light will change from a wave to a particle when it knows it is being wached. Light is a duality. It does not change from particle to waveform, it exists as both. Dark matter may act like a wave being everywhere, yet when measured has very litttle hard matter pushing it.By definition, Dark Matter, indeed, has "very little hard matter pushing it". DM attempts to explain the visible mass deficit of the universe, as observed, in accordance with calculations from numerous sources. The universe looks hard and real. If the universe is a wave function, it may be an optical illusion, and much smaller in reality. This is a bit philosophical, no? The wave collapses when redshifts are measured, and pushes dark matter faster, and further apart. Can you explain this idea a little better, and perhaps provide some scientific backing for this idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.