Space the final frontier

[onomatopoeia]

It's interesting because given the lack of heavier elements, no life could have existed until the first generation of stars had formed and died. The 7 is the isotope number - an isotope of an element is one where the nucleus has more neutrons than protons. In the case of lithium, its atomic number is 3 and thus it has 3 protons and 3 neutrons in its nucleus. Lithium 7 has 3 protons and 7 neutrons.

Four neutrons, surely, othewise it would be Lithium-10.

 

[Islander]

Four neutrons, surely, othewise it would be Lithium-10.

Yep, typo.

 

[Lynton]

Normal geometry doesn't really apply to the expansion of the universe - it's not a linear function. During the expansion phase it expanded a lot faster than it is expanding now and it's not a sphere.

But surely, if nothing can travel faster than light....... as in E=m x c squared, then for the universe to be 13.7 Bn light years in rasius, therefore 27.4 Bn
across..........

where has the rest gone? (as per previous post)

 

[Islander]

It's not a sphere and remember that all points in the universe will appear to have the same limit of expansion for an observer in that reference frame. The balloon analogy isn't a good one unfortunately.

 

[Vantage]

But surely, if nothing can travel faster than light....... as in E=m x c squared, then for the universe to be 13.7 Bn light years in rasius, therefore 27.4 Bn
across..........

where has the rest gone? (as per previous post)

Sorry I thought it was E=MC2.(cant do a little 2 ) Whats all this E=m x c squared rubbish. Maybe your putting a point across but the sum is as is. Took matty a hell of long time to work that out. :thumbsdown:

 

[AndyB1976]

But surely, if nothing can travel faster than light....... as in E=m x c squared, then for the universe to be 13.7 Bn light years in rasius, therefore 27.4 Bn
across..........

where has the rest gone? (as per previous post)

I also pondered that one

Lifted this from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years,[4] and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years or 8.80×1026
metres.[5] According to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light, although we can view only a small portion of the universe due to the limitation imposed by light speed. Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the universe is finite or infinite.

 

[Islander]

Sorry I thought it was E=MC2.(cant do a little 2 ) Whats all this E=m x c squared rubbish. Maybe your putting a point across but the sum is as is. Took matty a hell of long time to work that out. :thumbsdown:

E=mc² means energy = mass times the speed of light in a vacuum squared so writing it as E = m x c squared is perfectly ok

 

[Vantage]

I also pondered that one

Lifted this from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years,[4] and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years or 8.80×1026
metres.[5] According to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light, although we can view only a small portion of the universe due to the limitation imposed by light speed. Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the universe is finite or infinite.

Crickey! now there's two ways to time travel. cough! One faster than the other!

 

[Vantage]

E=mc² means energy = mass times the speed of light in a vacuum squared so writing it as E = m x c squared is perfectly ok

Ok! see your point. Nothing wrong with writing how it is. Or is it a clever thing?

 

[Islander]

Either way is fine

 

[Vantage]

So the space between (us) is chucking along faster than the speed of light. Don't get me wrong but I was under the impression that light had the *******s over everything. I'm certainly not aware of space expansion being faster than light. Oh, maybe thats a black hole thing come to think of it!

 

[AndyB1976]

The preceding paragraph on that Wiki states

....Several independent experimental measurements support this theoretical expansion and, more generally, the Big Bang theory. Recent observations indicate that this expansion is accelerating because of dark energy, and that most of the matter in the universe may be in a form which cannot be detected by present instruments, and so is not accounted for in the present models of the universe; this has been named dark matter. The imprecision of current observations has hindered predictions of the ultimate fate of the universe.

So I am wondering if dark matter/energy could be expanding faster its just we can't measure it, buts its way out my comfort zone to even hypothesize.

 

[Lynton]

Now I am more kerfuddled than I was last night. Apologies as don't know how to do a superscript 2 for squared.

However, I thought impossible to travel > light speed as e=mc2 then as you tend towards speed of light ( c) then energy required tends to infinity.

 

[Lunaticsamurai]

Unfortunately dark matter cannot be measured yet as stated, and although they suggest that dark matter is moving faster than light, we don't know and we cannot measure it, so to date, Light is the fastest known speed other than the thoery of the expansion of the universe.

But something that has always got me, is this.

For something to explode, there needs to be something, how can nothing explode, we sit in the same space as the big ban, if we don't and the big bang was smaller, then where did what we sit in come from, and what are we expanding into? more nothing? but what is nothing, there has to be something. The big bang has been measured, the radiation from the big bang has been measured, yet we don't know whats beyond the known universe.

There could also be an infinite number of universes and big bangs going off outside our own, like tiny bubbles in a coke bottle of infinite size.

 

[Islander]

I'm a bit of an agnostic when it comes to dark matter/energy. There's been no direct evidence of its existence - I'd have though some gamma ray evidence would have been discovered by now, but that's not to say it doesn't exist.

There are some interesting theories out there that may also explain things without having to invoke dark matter/energy. Modified Newtonian Dynamics, Supersymmetry, M Theory etc. - I'm keeping an open mind on it all