Puzzled Over The Expansion Of The Universe

[shiva]

Suchandra you wrote

 

 

Although modern science found out that the Universe is constantly expanding they still look for the answer, what is this gigantic force that makes our Universe expand?

 

Your assertion that "modern science" has "found out that the Universe is constantly expanding" - is a faulty premise. There is a big debate amongst cosmologists and physicists over whether the big bang theory (which postulates an expanding universe as one of it's central tenets) is correct or not. The majority accept the big bang theory and it's corollary of an expanding universe, but there is a large minority who reject those ideas.

 

The idea of an expanding universe is predicated upon the accurate assumption of redshift ( for redshift see http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm ) being analogous to distance alone. From that error (see previous link) of believing that redshift correlates with distance, the theory of an expanding universe was developed. In fact as Halton Arp has shown, redshift is not analogous with distance, therefore the expanding universe theory falls apart. Of course modern cosmology is built upon the labor of tens of thousands of professionals whose jobs depend upon maintaining the status quo. If the big bang theory and it's corollary of an expanding universe were to be rejected tomorrow, tens of thousands of academics would become redundant due to the fact that the entire academic world has been dedicated to big bang cosmology as revealed truth for 40 years. Knowing this, people like Arp have been attacked in order to preserve the orthodoxy. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051102arp-galileo.htm As for wikipedia, it is a terrible source for anything which is controversial in science. It is invariably controlled by mainstream ideologues who consistently lie and mischaracterize. For example if you go to Halton Arp's wikipedia page you will see a bunch of nonsense like this

 

 

Critics

 

Since Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s, however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly; the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely used. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been used to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[4] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[5][6][7]

 

Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge.[8]

 

None of what that says in any way discredits what Arp discovered, nor is it even close to being accurate. The reverse is in fact true i.e. as technology has increased, Arp's findings have been confirmed. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/halton-arp-seeing-red-errors-big-bang.htm

 

The current idea of an expanding universe is really quite mad. In order to determine if the universe is expanding it would first be necessary to establish which direction is outward. How do you know if what you think is matter expanding outwards, into new territory, really is matter moving outward, instead of just moving around in different directions? You first need to establish a place where things are expanding away from, otherwise how can you tell which direction matter is moving in? But according to big bang cosmology, there is no center, everything is moving all at the same time outwards. But without a center it is impossible to determine which way is outwards. In reality what is observed is different then what is theorized. The theory states that all matter is expanding outwards, the observations show matter clumping together into stars and planets, then those solar systems clumping into galaxies, then those galaxies clumping into clusters of galaxies, then those clusters clumping into superclusters. Our universe looks like long strands (superclusters) of galaxies, surrounded by immense voids. There is no way to tell that these superclusters are all moving away from a central point, "expanding" out. All we know is that there is a clumping effect caused by gravity (which is a mystery as well). The idea of an expanding universe is based upon the faulty premise of the big bang theory being correct (which is demonstrably false http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ http://holoscience.com http://www.thunderbolts.info/ ) and of redshift being analogous to distance (which has been disproven but not accepted as such by mainstream orthodoxy)

 

Also there is no such thing as "dark matter", nor is there "dark energy", both of which have been latched onto by the orthodoxy in order to patch up problems with the big bang theory when contrasted with newer discoveries i.e. without dark energy and dark matter the big bang theory is impossible to be true. see http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/ghosts_of_dark_matter.htm

 

And also

 

 

Things fall apart

Feb 5th 2004

From The Economist print edition

_

THINGS FALL APART

 

What if the dark energy and dark matter essential to modern

explanations of the universe don't really exist?

 

IT WAS beautiful, complex and wrong. In 150AD, Ptolemy of Alexandria

published his theory of epicycles--the idea that the moon, the sun and

the planets moved in circles which were moving in circles which were

moving in circles around the Earth. This theory explained the motion of

celestial objects to an astonishing degree of precision. It was,

however, what computer programmers call a kludge: a dirty, inelegant

solution. Some 1,500 years later, Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer,

replaced the whole complex edifice with three simple laws.

 

Some people think modern astronomy is based on a kludge similar to

Ptolemy's. At the moment, the received wisdom is that the obvious stuff

in the universe--stars, planets, gas clouds and so on--is actually only

4% of its total content. About another quarter is so-called cold, dark

matter, which is made of different particles from the familiar sort of

matter, and can interact with the latter only via gravity. The

remaining 70% is even stranger. It is known as dark energy, and acts to

push the universe apart. However, the existence of cold, dark matter

and dark energy has to be inferred from their effects on the visible,

familiar stuff. If something else is actually causing those effects,

the whole theoretical edifice would come crashing down.

 

According to a paper just published in the MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL

ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY by Tom Shanks and his colleagues at the University

of Durham, in England, that might be about to happen. Many of the

inferences about dark matter and dark energy come from detailed

observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This is

radiation that pervades space, and is the earliest remnant of the Big

Bang which is thought to have started it all. Small irregularities in

the CMB have been used to deduce what the early universe looked like,

and thus how much cold, dark matter and dark energy there is around.

 

Dr Shanks thinks these irregularities may have been misinterpreted. He

and his colleagues have been analysing data on the CMB that were

collected by WMAP, a satellite launched in 2001 by NASA, America's

space agency. They have compared these data with those from telescopic

surveys of galaxy clusters, and have found correlations between the two

which, they say, indicate that the clusters are adding to the energy of

the CMB by a process called inverse Compton scattering, in which hot

gas boosts the energy of the microwaves. That, they say, might be

enough to explain the irregularities without resorting to ghostly dark

matter and energy.

 

Dr Shanks is not the only person questioning the status quo. In a pair

of papers published in a December issue of ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS,

Sebastien Vauclair of the Astrophysics Laboratory of the Midi-Pyrenees,

in Toulouse, and his colleagues also report the use of galaxy clusters

to question the existence of dark energy. But their method uses the

clusters in a completely different way from Dr Shanks, and thus opens a

second flank against the conventional wisdom.

 

Cosmological theory says that the relationship between the mass of a

galaxy cluster and its age is a test of the value of the "density

parameter" of the universe. The density parameter is, in turn, a

measure of just how much normal matter, dark matter and dark energy

there is. But because the mass of a cluster is difficult to measure

directly, astronomers have to infer it from computer models which tell

them how the temperature of the gas in a cluster depends on that

cluster's mass.

 

Even measuring the temperature of a cluster is difficult, though. What

is easy to measure is its luminosity. And that should be enough, since

luminosity and temperature are related. All you need to know are the

details of the relationship, and by measuring luminosity you can

backtrack to temperature and then to mass.

 

That has been done for nearby clusters, but not for distant ones which,

because of the time light has taken to travel from them to Earth,

provide a snapshot of earlier times. So Dr Vauclair and his colleagues

used XMM-NEWTON, a European X-ray-observation satellite that was

launched in 1999, to measure the X-ray luminosities and the

temperatures of eight distant clusters of galaxies. They then compared

the results with those from closer (and therefore apparently older)

clusters.

 

The upshot was that the relationship between mass and age did not match

the predictions of conventional theory. It did, however, match an

alternative model with a much higher density of "ordinary" matter in it.

 

That does not mean conventional theory is yet dead. The NEWTON

observations are at the limits of accuracy, so a mistake could have

crept in. Or it could be that astronomers have misunderstood how galaxy

clusters evolve. Changing that understanding would be uncomfortable,

but not nearly as uncomfortable as throwing out cold, dark matter and

dark energy.

 

On the other hand, a universe that requires three completely different

sorts of stuff to explain its essence does have a whiff of epicycles

about it. As Albert Einstein supposedly said, "Physics should be made

as simple as possible, but not simpler." Put Dr Shanks's and Dr

Vauclair's observations together, and one cannot help but wonder

whether Ptolemy might soon have some company in the annals of

convoluted, discarded theories.

[davidbrucehughes]

Great post Shiva, I was going to make most of these points myself in response to the previous discussion.

 

love,

Baba

[Guest]

ow can one know that the universe is expanding? What NASA sees with its telescope is all within this universe only. LOL. so how can one say that the universe is expanding? All this is within the stomach of Vairaj Pursu?sh AKA Vairat Narayan. How can one see whats occuring in another Vairaj? When truth is that they cannot even find the end of this one?

[suchandra]

 

The current idea of an expanding universe is really quite mad.

Thanks for your well researched feedback. Since the dimension of our universe is out of reach I posted quotes to back up that scientists speak of having substantial proof of an expanding universe. Fact is when the universes come out of Maha-Vishnu they're small like seeds and become enlarged.

If ever and when exactly that enlarging process is finished seems beyond our tiny brain's capacity - unless we get some sastrical reference.

If quoted correctly, The Quran says, "we live in a continuously expanding and dynamic universe" - but how can the Quran contain more knowledge than the Vedas:

http://theislamicscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/we-live-in-expanding-universe.html

 

Is the universe infinite? Or is it finite in a steady state? From the very beginning this has been a subject of debate between great minds. Hot debates and ratiocination of all kinds failed to clarify this dilemma. This had once been the subject of philosophical speculations before it yielded its place to the science of physics.

 

Prabhupada: "When those golden sperms, coming out with the exhalation of Mahā-Viṣṇu, enter into the unlimited accommodating chamber of the limited potency they become enlarged by the nonconglomerate great elements."

 

(Brahma-samhita - http://vedabase.net/bs/5/13/en)

[suchandra]

 

Great post Shiva, I was going to make most of these points myself in response to the previous discussion.

 

love,

Baba

 

 

Welcome back, thanks Baba, yes, this cannot be that we are informed like the medieval Vatican system of the "Papal bull" decree, the leaders declare some bogus idea to be valid, and then the mass of people are forced to accept that since there is no process for redress or reconciliation.

I'm sure there must be something more about the Universe in the Vedas.

[shiva]

 

Thanks for your well researched feedback. Since the dimension of our universe is out of reach I posted quotes to back up that scientists speak of having substantial proof of an expanding universe. Fact is when the universes come out of Maha-Vishnu they're small like seeds and become enlarged.

If ever and when exactly that enlarging process is finished seems beyond our tiny brain's capacity - unless we get some sastrical reference.

If quoted correctly, The Quran says, "we live in a continuously expanding and dynamic universe" - but how can the Quran contain more knowledge than the Vedas:

http://theislamicscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/we-live-in-expanding-universe.html

 

 

Prabhupada: "When those golden sperms, coming out with the exhalation of Mahā-Viṣṇu, enter into the unlimited accommodating chamber of the limited potency they become enlarged by the nonconglomerate great elements."

 

(Brahma-samhita - http://vedabase.net/bs/5/13/en)

 

The quote from the Brahma Samhita is usually attributed to Bhaktisiddhanta (or some say that the attribution to Bhaktisiddhanta was a mistake and that it is actually the words of Bhaktivinoda), but nevertheless those words do not support the current conception of an expanding universe. Those words are talking about the birth of a brahmanda from a potential state into an actual state, like a sperm is the potential of a body, then when it is born it becomes "enlarged" into an actual body. I wouldn't read into those words the idea that they support an expanding universe. The vedic conception is that each brahmanda is first a potential within Maha Visnu, and are then formed or enlarged from that potential (this is all metaphoric), then creation of life forms begins, not that the brahmanda keeps on growing after it is formed.

[suchandra]

 

The vedic conception is that each brahmanda is first a potential within Maha Visnu, and are then formed or enlarged from that potential (this is all metaphoric), then creation of life forms begins, not that the brahmanda keeps on growing after it is formed.

It would be nice to have quotes - since it is the vedic conception.

The duration of this universe is equivalent with Lord Brahma's duration of life, we seem to be right in the middle of the duration of this universe. It is even difficult to calculate the duration of Lord Brahma's one day,

 

 

In one day of Brahmā, there are fourteen Manus, and each Manu’s age is forty-three lakhs of years multiplied by seventy-two. So now it is the age of Vaivasvata Manu. This is the, out of the fourteenth Manu, this is the seventh Manu. It is going on. So this age is called Manu. Manu, the father of the humankind. Manuṣya.

http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/730113BG.BOM.htm?i=1973

Bhagavad-gītā 7.1

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

Bombay, January 13, 1973

 

What to speak the duration of the universe, encyclopedia of authentic hinduism says, Lord Brahma is right now about 50 years of age.

But where is it stated at what point the enlargement of the universe is completed?

 

(48) The exact calculations of the age of Brahma and the existing manvantar according to the Bhagwatam.

 

<hr color="#000000" noshade="noshade" size="1"> http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/48_the_exact_calculations.htm

Absolute age of the earth planet and the sun. Bhagwan Ved Vyas explains in the Bhagwatam that 155.52 trillion years have passed since Brahma originally created this planetary system, and this is the present age of Brahma.

The Bhagwatam says, “Brahma’s one day equals to 1,000 cycles of the four yugas (one cycle of four yugas is 4.32 million years). It is called one kalp. There are fourteen Manus in one kalp. For the same length of time there is the night of Brahma. This is called pralaya or kalp pralaya. At that time the earth planet and the sun along with three celestial abodes (bhu, bhuv and swah) enter into the transition period (and become uninhabited). During that period Brahma holds within himself all the beings of the material and the celestial worlds in a suspended state and sleeps. (The next day he again produces them and re-forms them as they were before.) In this way Brahma lives for two parardh (twice of 50 years). After that, there is a complete dissolution of the brahmand (the planetary system and its celestial abodes). This is called prakrit pralaya of the brahmand.” (Bhag. 12/4/2 to 6)

“Half of Brahma’s life is called parardh. One parardh is finished and the existing kalp is in the beginning of the second parardh (the first day of the 51st year of Brahma). The very first day of Brahma was the day when he himself was created by God Vishnu and it was called the Brahm kalp. The present running kalp is called Varah kalp (or Shvet Varah kalp).” (3/11/33,34,36)

“In this kalp six Manus like Swayambhuva Manu etc. have elapsed. The seventh Manu is the son of Vivaswan. He is the present Manu and is called Vaivaswat Manu.” (8/1/4; 8/13/1)

In the Bhagwat Mahatmya Bhagwan Ved Vyas reveals a great secret and says that this is the 28th dwapar (of Vaivaswat manvantar). Not in all, but sometimes at the end of the 28th dwapar of a kalp the supreme personality of God, Krishn, in His absolute loving form descends in the world on the land of Bharatvarsh and reveals His supremely charming playful Divine leelas; and that had happened in our age just about 5,000 years ago. (Bhag. Ma. 1/29)

According to the above information, Brahma’s age which is also the absolute age of our sun and the earth planet is: 50 years of Brahma x 720 days and nights x (1,000 x 4.32 million years of the four yugas, which is one day of Brahma)+ 1,972 million years* (the existing age of the earth planet) = 155.521972 trillion years.

* One manvantar is: 308.57142 million years. Thus, 1851.4285 (6 manvantar) + 116.6400 (27 cycles of four yugas) + 3.8931 (the three yugas and the elapsed time of kaliyug) = 1971.9616 in 1998 AD.

One year of Brahma is of 360 days (and one month of Brahma is of 30 days). So, 360 x 50 = 18,000 days and nights of Brahma have elapsed. Thus, our earth planet and the sun have already been renovated 18,000 times. It’s a big figure, but reasonable if you think over it deeply, and again it is given by an all-knowing Divine personality.