Expansion of the Universe



I need some evidence to accept what he says as truth. So he's talking about something that can never be observed and I should accept what he says because he's a physicist? Sometimes I think physicists disappear up their own arse with an hypothesis that is non-falsifiable. He may as well be talking about God.

He says they lied when physicists claimed that nothing could move faster than light, yet Einstein's Theory allows for hypothetical particles called tachyons that move faster than light but backwards through time. Is he lying about the speed of light being constant or has it slowed down?
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
I need some evidence to accept what he says as truth. So he's talking about something that can never be observed and I should accept what he says because he's a physicist? Sometimes I think physicists disappear up their own arse with an hypothesis that is non-falsifiable. He may as well be talking about God.

He says they lied when physicists claimed that nothing could move faster than light, yet Einstein's Theory allows for hypothetical particles called tachyons that move faster than light but backwards through time. Is he lying about the speed of light being constant or has it slowed down?
Click to expand...

Why would the speed of light not be constant?
 
Mercia Blackcat said:
I need some evidence to accept what he says as truth. So he's talking about something that can never be observed and I should accept what he says because he's a physicist? Sometimes I think physicists disappear up their own arse with an hypothesis that is non-falsifiable. He may as well be talking about God.

He says they lied when physicists claimed that nothing could move faster than light, yet Einstein's Theory allows for hypothetical particles called tachyons that move faster than light but backwards through time. Is he lying about the speed of light being constant or has it slowed down?
Click to expand...

He could be talking bollocks but if he was and another scientist proved he was talking bollocks then they would get credit for it. I know nowt about this but when you talk about Tachyons you are still talking about "stuff moving through Space" whereas he said Space itself moved faster than light. I totally get that as an idea.
 
FalkirkMackem said:
Why would the speed of light not be constant?
Click to expand...

Well the inflation model allows the speed of light to have been faster in the early universe but has slowed since. Also the speed of light is only considered constant in a vacuum and there is no such thing as a pure vacuum according to quantum physics. I think it is a fair enough question to ask which is what I did, ask the question.
 
Last edited:
PinzaC55 said:
He could be talking bollocks but if he was and another scientist proved he was talking bollocks then they would get credit for it. I know nowt about this but when you talk about Tachyons you are still talking about "stuff moving through Space" whereas he said Space itself moved faster than light. I totally get that as an idea.
Click to expand...
Well they can't say he's talking bollocks because what he is saying is not falsifiable. That doesn't mean he is speaking the truth.
Pseudonym Number 1 said:
OK, so what's past the edge of space or the universe?
Click to expand...

I find this an interesting question because the usual response from physicists is to fudge the issue. There is nothing outside the universe, no time or space, is the usual answer but then the physicist in the clip above says there could be other universes beyond ours that haven't had time to affect us yet. If that is true there must be a distance in the nothing between us which implies dimension and therefore space. Unless all such universes came into existence at the same time, then it is possible that an older universe born virtually an infinite time ago has had virtually an infinite amount of time to expand faster than the speed of light, and in fact accelerating outward. Is there any evidence that such a universe has affected this universe, although to be fair, if there was that would substantiate his theory.
 
Last edited:
PinzaC55 said:
If what he is saying is correct then there is no such thing as "past the edge" and the Universe is "everything there is", it's just getting bigger.
Click to expand...
I can at least get my head around that concept. I also question whether there can only have been a single "Big Bang" in a universal quantum field. So I am not dismissing his concept but would think that by now we would have had some effect from another such event that has had a virtually infinite amount of time to expand at an accelerating speed. Of course maybe there has been such an effect but we haven't acquired the technology to detect it yet. It's not that along ago we developed the technology to detect the incredibly subtle gravitational waves from our own Big Bang.
 
Last edited:
Mercia Blackcat said:
I can at least get my head around that concept. I also question whether there can only have been a single "Big Bang" in a universal quantum field. So I am not dismissing his concept but would think that by now we would have had some effect from another such event that has had a virtually infinite amount of time to expand at an accelerating speed. Of course maybe there has been such an effect but we haven't acquired the technology to detect it yet. It's not that along ago we developed the technology to detect the incredibly subtle gravitational waves from our own Big Bang.
Click to expand...
PS

Although this would indicate that the expansion of space was independent of our own localised Big Bang. In which case only localised time came into existence at that moment.
 
Last edited:
One theory is that our universe is part of a larger “multiverse”. Still doesn’t answer the question of what is beyond that mind?

Maybe it’s ad-infinitum like the Mandelbrot Set?
 

Back
Top