Claim: Universe to end with a 'big rip' where 'atoms are ripped apart'

New model of cosmic stickiness favors ‘Big Rip’ demise of universe

This is a time line of life of the universe that ends in a Big Rip. Credit Jeremy Teaford, Vanderbilt University

From Vanderbilt University:

The universe can be a very sticky place, but just how sticky is a matter of debate.

That is because for decades cosmologists have had trouble reconciling the classic notion of viscosity based on the laws of thermodynamics with Einstein’s general theory of relativity. However, a team from Vanderbilt University has come up with a fundamentally new mathematical formulation of the problem that appears to bridge this long-standing gap.

The new math has some significant implications for the ultimate fate of the universe. It tends to favor one of the more radical scenarios that cosmologists have come up with known as the “Big Rip.” It may also shed new light on the basic nature of dark energy.

The new approach was developed by Assistant Professor of Mathematics Marcelo Disconzi in collaboration with physics professors Thomas Kephart and Robert Scherrer and is described in a paper published earlier this year in the journal Physical Review D.

“Marcelo has come up with a simpler and more elegant formulation that is mathematically sound and obeys all the applicable physical laws,” said Scherrer.

The type of viscosity that has cosmological relevance is different from the familiar “ketchup” form of viscosity, which is called shear viscosity and is a measure of a fluid’s resistance to flowing through small openings like the neck of a ketchup bottle. Instead, cosmological viscosity is a form of bulk viscosity, which is the measure of a fluid’s resistance to expansion or contraction. The reason we don’t often deal with bulk viscosity in everyday life is because most liquids we encounter cannot be compressed or expanded very much.

Disconzi began by tackling the problem of relativistic fluids. Astronomical objects that produce this phenomenon include supernovae (exploding stars) and neutron stars (stars that have been crushed down to the size of planets).

Scientists have had considerable success modeling what happens when ideal fluids – those with no viscosity – are boosted to near-light speeds. But almost all fluids are viscous in nature and, despite decades of effort, no one has managed to come up with a generally accepted way to handle viscous fluids traveling at relativistic velocities. In the past, the models formulated to predict what happens when these more realistic fluids are accelerated to a fraction of the speed of light have been plagued with inconsistencies: the most glaring of which has been predicting certain conditions where these fluids could travel faster than the speed of light.

“This is disastrously wrong,” said Disconzi, “since it is well-proven experimentally that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.”

These problems inspired the mathematician to re-formulate the equations of relativistic fluid dynamics in a way that does not exhibit the flaw of allowing faster-than-light speeds. He based his approach on one that was advanced in the 1950s by French mathematician André Lichnerowicz.

Next, Disconzi teamed up with Kephart and Scherrer to apply his equations to broader cosmological theory. This produced a number of interesting results, including some potential new insights into the mysterious nature of dark energy.

In the 1990s, the physics community was shocked when astronomical measurements showed that the universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate. To explain this unpredicted acceleration, they were forced to hypothesize the existence of an unknown form of repulsive energy that is spread throughout the universe. Because they knew so little about it, they labeled it “dark energy.”

Most dark energy theories to date have not taken cosmic viscosity into account, despite the fact that it has a repulsive effect strikingly similar to that of dark energy. “It is possible, but not very likely, that viscosity could account for all the acceleration that has been attributed to dark energy,” said Disconzi. “It is more likely that a significant fraction of the acceleration could be due to this more prosaic cause. As a result, viscosity may act as an important constraint on the properties of dark energy.”

Another interesting result involves the ultimate fate of the universe. Since the discovery of the universe’s run-away expansion, cosmologists have come up with a number of dramatic scenarios of what it could mean for the future.

One scenario, dubbed the “Big Freeze,” predicts that after 100 trillion years or so the universe will have grown so vast that the supplies of gas will become too thin for stars to form. As a result, existing stars will gradually burn out, leaving only black holes which, in turn, slowly evaporate away as space itself gets colder and colder.

An even more radical scenario is the “Big Rip.” It is predicated on a type of “phantom” dark energy that gets stronger over time. In this case, the expansion rate of the universe becomes so great that in 22 billion years or so material objects begin to fall apart and individual atoms disassemble themselves into unbound elementary particles and radiation.

The key value involved in this scenario is the ratio between dark energy’s pressure and density, what is called its equation of state parameter. If this value drops below -1 then the universe will eventually be pulled apart. Cosmologists have called this the “phantom barrier.” In previous models with viscosity the universe could not evolve beyond this limit.

In the Desconzi-Kephart-Scherrer formulation, however, this barrier does not exist. Instead, it provides a natural way for the equation of state parameter to fall below -1.

“In previous models with viscosity the Big Rip was not possible,” said Scherrer. “In this new model, viscosity actually drives the universe toward this extreme end state.”

According to the scientists, the results of their pen-and-paper analyses of this new formulation for relativistic viscosity are quite promising but a much deeper analysis must be carried out to determine its viability. The only way to do this is to use powerful computers to analyze the complex equations numerically. In this fashion the scientists can make predictions that can be compared with experiment and observation.


The research was supported by National Science Foundation grant 1305705 and Department of Energy grant DE-SC0011981.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 2, 2015 3:52 am

Such doom and gloom 😉

Reply to  23
July 2, 2015 6:08 am

They’re still trying to jimmy reality into matching Biblical prophecy. 😉

Reply to  Goldrider
July 2, 2015 6:08 am

Since cultural biases are ridiculously strong!

Reply to  23
July 2, 2015 7:08 am

Actually, for the Earthlings prospects are much gloomier and end will come much sooner.
These people are astronomic illiterates and an embarrassment to the cosmology.
Sun is a middle age star, and eventually will morph into red giant swallowing all inner planets, including the Earth (which will slowly melt and turn into constituent indistinguishable part of the aging sun) long, long, long before they envisage the ‘Earth exploding’comment image?w=720&h=556

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
Reply to  vukcevic
July 2, 2015 9:37 am

Yes, I had to do some research on this in the past. You have to say though, given the size of the Sun, it isn’t certain that it will balloon big enough to swallow the Earth. It is possible that it will escape the expansion and continue to orbit the Sun for billions of years. vukcevic, this is because as the Sun expands, it loses mass. The Earth therefore drifts outward because the gravitational pull isn’t as great. This doesn’t mean it will escape the Sun for certain, as other factors will be at play.
But in just a billion years from now, Earth will be a dry, dusty rock. That’s for certain.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 2, 2015 11:16 am

Not necessarily! By that time, we’ll be able to move the Earth into a more distant orbit, and into a more congenial neighborhood. Science fiction writer Larry Niven has already proposed the basic mechanism; build a whopping enormous fusion ramjet engine on Saturn’s moon Titan, and use Titan as a “gravity tug” to coax the Earth into an orbit around Jupiter.
After all, we have plenty of time!

Reply to  vukcevic
July 2, 2015 11:45 am

These models may be right, they may be wrong, but thank goodness I won’t be there to see.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 2, 2015 12:00 pm

No need for anything as complex as a gravity, a single 100 foot rock on a sling shot orbit about once every century or so would be sufficient nudge the earth into higher orbits faster than the sun expands.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 2, 2015 1:12 pm

I am not very convinced by the BB hypothesis any way, a four-dimensional toroid of a single ever regenerating universe is more acceptable to my simple minded view.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 2, 2015 2:56 pm

We have a merger with Andromeda to consider also. We could end up just about anywhere, perhaps another coloured ring of debris around Saturn or Jupiter?

Reply to  vukcevic
July 2, 2015 5:27 pm

Vukcevic, this is a family website. Pictures of bottoms are not appropriate.

Reply to  vukcevic
July 5, 2015 4:54 am

Actually the Earth will be dead long before the sun comes anywhere near the end of its life cycle. The Earth has about 800 million to 1 billion years left before its surface is to hot to support life. The sun warms up as it ages and in about 800 million years it will push the average surface temperature here on the Earth up to a rather hot 165°F. At that point, life on the surface of the Earth will be all but impossible and we will have either long since moved out into the galaxy, or we will be long dead.

Reply to  23
July 2, 2015 11:52 am

100 trillion years.
I’ll wait till tomorrow to start worrying.

Reply to  23
July 4, 2015 2:54 am

“This is disastrously wrong,” said Disconzi, “since it is well-proven experimentally that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.”
What experiments would those be? We haven’t the technology to propel any objects at close to the SOL and subatomic entities and macro objects might have radically different behaviors.

Hari Seldon
Reply to  Steven Swenson (RC) (@Steven_Swenson)
July 4, 2015 7:26 am

Particle accelerators work on the basis that no object can cross the speed of light barrier and that momentum, energy, and mass increase asymptotically as you approach the speed of light – the energies of the photons and particles that are measured experimentally make no sense otherwise. And if subatomic particles can’t do it, how would macroscopic objects composed of subatomic particles do it?

Reply to  Steven Swenson (RC) (@Steven_Swenson)
July 9, 2015 3:15 pm

Protons in the rings at CERN travel at very close fractions of the speed of light, and all the extra energy that is now going in goes into their momentum and not their speed, because of this speed limit.

Bloke down the pub
July 2, 2015 3:57 am

Gaia gets her bodice ripped.

July 2, 2015 3:57 am

(Rings bell) Last call, ladies and gentlemen.
One hopes their new model makes more actually measurable predictions than string theory.

Reply to  Jeff
July 2, 2015 4:31 am

Supersymmetric string theories have created a bunch of predictions, none of which appear to be true. This means there is science going on its normal pace.
The big-rip is a highly speculative idea, which does not seem to have any relevance to us mortals, but is rather a purely mathematical exercise. Good for them. Don’t let your brain boil by trying to understand.

Reply to  Hugh
July 2, 2015 7:34 am

Well, thank goodness! I was thinking of moving to Utah or someplace.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  Hugh
July 3, 2015 1:13 am

I can’t move to Utah, since I’m already here. It is a nice place to live, but I’m curious why you’d need to move.

george e. smith
Reply to  Jeff
July 2, 2015 6:01 am

You and me both.
I have never placed much hope in string theory. The idea of tinier things that “wiggle” just seems absurd, because such a gizmo, would necessarily have to be made up of even smaller “moving parts.”
I have no idea in my mind, as to what these new guys are really saying; but I like the way this release is worded. Makes it sound like they feel they are on to something.
Well I guess I will shave my face this morning, just in case this ripping starts anywhere near me.
A nice cheerful way to start another rain free morning. Thanks Anthony for this one.
Was it the Aussies who came up with that expression; ” Ripper Mate !! ” ?

Reply to  george e. smith
July 2, 2015 6:49 am

re: “Makes it sound like they feel they are on to something.” george e. smith
An entire career is created out of models (AKA, mental masturbation) so decades will be needed to flesh out that something that they are on to. The have found, they hope, a full employment plan for the rest of their working lives if they can convince the rubes to fund them.
Physics fell off the wagon over 100 years ago. The Big Rip idea is another fool’s errand stemming from that wrong turn.
Dan Kurt

Reply to  Jeff
July 2, 2015 6:07 am

Pure speculation, all of it. These guys just serve theirs up with some theoretical math, putting “cosmologist” right up there with “climate scientist” in the speculative fiction mill.

george e. smith
Reply to  Goldrider
July 2, 2015 6:26 am

Well ALL of mathematics is just fiction. We made it all up out of whole cloth, and there is not one single entity of any branch of mathematics, that actually exists in the real (or any other) universe. Can’t even find any mathematical points anywhere.
Well maybe “Projective Geometry” will finally catch on.
Basic axioms of PG.
1/ Two points define a line.
2/ Two lines define a point. Yes it’s a plane geometry.
3/ There are at least four points. Like the corners of the Charlie Brown kite.
First theorem. There are at least seven points. Like there’s one new one where the kite sticks cross (axiom two).
It can’t be proven that there are any more than seven points (different points).
And in PG, circles are just a special case of hyperbolas, and they all intersect each other ( at the two “circular points at infinity”, so circles are infinite in size too, since hyperbolas are.
See, we really did just make all this stuff up out of nothing.

Reply to  Jeff
July 2, 2015 9:01 am

How about recognizing an old model and stop nursing the current version of a failed model?
The Big Bang model (BB) for the origin and evolution of our Universe is a grossly bandaged and kludged behemoth that needs to go away. Discussions of how the Universe will end, the Big Freeze, the Big Crunch, etc., ignore the fact that the model is seriously and egregiously flawed. A Steady State Universe model (SSU) matches up perfectly with what we see once one comes to grip with the fact that the velocity-based red-shift that is the basis of the BB model is not valid.
Quasars have been clearly shown, but not accepted and specifically ignored by the BB proponents, to be localized to the regions around their parent galaxies. Their redshifts decrease as they move away from their central galaxy and begin to transform by intergalactic matter accretion in protogalaxies. They are not the ultra-distant, metaphysically powerful objects at the edge of the universe. They are local and thus not as drastic as they are believed from BB theory and take on realistic physical features.
The key is that BB assumes that gravity runs the Universe and almost completely ignores electromagnetic effects, which are a billion, billion, billion, billion (10 to the 36th) times more powerful, assuming all charges balance to zero locally and all through the Universe. BB also assumes that all redshift by objects must be caused by velocity-caused Doppler effects. BB completely ignores that an object, not moving, causes a redshift gravitationally. Thus, the distance of massive, dense objects nearby can be misinterpreted to be very distant, fast-moving objects, based on redshift, when, in fact, they are much closer.
BB theory has been patched over and over to explain observations that do not fit. For example, the abundance of light elements in the Universe was explained or, more accurately “fixed/patched” by inventing Dark Matter to discount (read, “ignore”) all cold, non-glowing, real matter in the Universe. [Literally, they pretend that all real matter is visible to us and there is no cold matter. SSU has no problem with light element abundance.]
As gravity should be working to slow down the BB expansion and it cannot be detected in observations, BB supporters had to invent Dark Force that counters gravity and that is working to expand the Universe. Of course, if you have Dark Matter and Dark Force, you would have Dark Energy, completing the invention of a Dark Physics, and the many fantasies of tapping this non-existent energy source. At this point, the fudge factor in the BB theory is 10 to the 106th power, that’s 10,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000.
They really want us to believe that 95+% of the Universe is undetectable and then make up lots of ephemeral ways to infer its presence.
The solar and cosmic winds are evidence that charges move around in space and that static charges can occur which can result in current flows between objects. When observations of the Universe are examined in terms of plasma physics, with gravity also in play but not dominant, as BB pretends, lots of the structures observed in the Universe become rather normal. Local solar, interstellar, and intergalactic features can be explained without inventing undetectable factors and imaginary Dark Physics. Einstein did not think black holes existed, and there are currently seven different models for black holes that do not agree with what we see. BB supporters pretend to see black holes everywhere. It is curious that, only with black holes, BB supporters recognize that gravity can cause redshifts; how myopic and selective of them.
The bottom line is that studies of quasars show that the BB model is fatally flawed and we have an SSU, as was thought long before Hubble reported astronomical redshifts. It simply may be that we will never know the past history of the Universe nor know how it is developing in the future. BB theory appealed to many people because it offered an almost religiously-based birth, origin, genesis, or beginning.
Recently, at the micro-scale, the model of quantum mechanics has been elegantly completed. One implication of this model is that the BB model cannot be. It is fun to see that both the macro (quasars) and micro (quantum mechanics) worlds negate the BB theory.
In an SSU, all Dark Physics, and related fantasies that spawn from it, can be abandoned and the massive, cobbled patches to the BB model are not needed in order to understand what we see and what is happening when we look out at the Universe.
Oh, and a Steady State Universe also obviates all the “Multiverse of Universes” and such that go with the BB theory speculations. One speculation went so far as to claim to calculate how far it is to the nearest other universe in which I am wearing a blue shirt today rather than a white shirt. These fantasies are mind- blowing and fun, but they are also patently absurd and way out of being even slightly realistic—ah, that would be what we call science fiction.
Of course, the BB research community comprise a very wealthy industry and has job security, always needing more funding to do research to describe things that simply do not exist and never will. They will always be on the verge of discovering something. [I am not talking particle physics, such as the Higgs particle. I am talking about mini-black holes and efforts to detect Dark stuff.]

Reply to  higley7
July 2, 2015 9:34 am

How then in the SSU do you account for night sky, age of the universe and such? I mean a standard argument against the SSU is that we have night. In the SSU, the universe is infinitely old, which means over time that we have now, there should be saturation of light in the night sky, leading to no darkness. If the universe ISN’T infinitely old in SSU, then when did it start and why?
I realize I’m bringing up a standard argument against SSU. And will admit that it was taught in Astronomy 1. But it deserves some sort of response and both BB and SSU to be tested by our limited ability to test them. – testing and falsification being essential elements of the Scientific Method. I’m genuinely curious about such a response.

Reply to  higley7
July 2, 2015 10:13 am

To quote big bang theory (the show) thank you for close captioning my pain. And very good explanations; thank you. Ok, things can be counter intuitive but just darn. BBT pretty much ignores electricity? I like the paraphrased quote that electricity flows to your can opener you don’t have to hold it beneath the outlet. Multiverse; a theory that predicts anything predicts nothing. Really, a whole new universe base on whether a C02 molecule zigs instead of zags. Speed of light limit, well may be true but light can be slowed down; it seems a bit non symmetric that light can be slowed but not sped up. I haven’t kept up or verified but I understood one of the “big” Higgs-Boson discoveries was a statistically tortured blip on a graph?
What I wanted to hear was some theories on the speed of gravity. What I found was a static field theory where a static gravity field always pointed directly at the source (no speed involved). Maybe, but ungratifying, Seemingly gravity is a vector sum of shifting different sources and intuitively doesn’t lend well to static source; to spite the static theory invoking relativity.
Is it possible to be an open minded skeptic?

Joseph Murphy
Reply to  higley7
July 2, 2015 11:21 am

The old Halton Arp Intrinsic Redshift/Electric Universe/Steady State Universe. I do enjoy “competing” theories. Arp has some interesting ideas and (old) data but intrinsic redshift seems to have more holes than Doppler/expansion redshift. Why are galaxies giving birth to and ejecting mini galaxies again? Why aren’t all quasars associated with ‘closer’ galaxies? I would agree that all redshift being based on Doppler/expansion is not well supported but falls into the ‘best theory we have’ category. The Electric Universe group is little more than a cult. SSU is a valid albeit currently unpopular view which relies heavily on alternative theories to observed redshift (tired light?). I don’t know of any that are overly convincing or as well supported as Doppler/expansion but if you have something new to point me towards I would be happy to read it.

Reply to  higley7
July 2, 2015 12:29 pm

relies heavily on alternative theories to observed redshift (tired light?)
No proof, but I like the “tired light” hypothesis. Maybe someone in optics can disabuse me but, space isn’t empty. The further away, the more refractions you get and seemingly a shift towards red.

george e. smith
Reply to  higley7
July 2, 2015 4:11 pm

Well electro-magnetic forces may be billions (with a B) times stronger than gravity; but gravity has the advantage; IT SUCKS !
So all you need is a whole lot of mass, and it all heads towards the common CM, hopefully with not too much in excessive net angular momentum, and you get a free gravitational thermo nuclear reactor, without ever lifting a finger, to put anything where it needs to be.
But the Coulomb force BLOWS .
And Earnshaw’s Theorem says that there is no point of stable equilibrium anywhere in an EM field. I. e. there is no place you can put an electric charge, and have it stay there.
And in particular you can’t hold enough electrically charged mass there under compression, for long enough or hot enough, for a continuous thermo nuclear reaction to occur.
In other words, old Sol is about what a working thermo nuclear energy plant looks like.
I don’t make the rules I just print them.
g >> G
The thing will eventually blow out the side somewhere

Lars P.
Reply to  higley7
July 5, 2015 9:59 am

AC says July 2, 2015 at 9:34 am
“How then in the SSU do you account for night sky, age of the universe and such? I mean a standard argument against the SSU is that we have night. In the SSU, the universe is infinitely old, which means over time that we have now, there should be saturation of light in the night sky, leading to no darkness.”
I was wondering, does this not assume the universe is 100% transparent? If the SSU universe is not 100% transparent it means that light from a certain distance is simply lost, like light in the ocean under 100 meters? It does not matter how long do you keep the ocean illuminated, light will not go deeper then a certain level?
taz1999 July 2, 2015 at 10:13 am
“What I wanted to hear was some theories on the speed of gravity”
There is a link posted by BFL July 2, 2015 at 10:25 am below.
Joseph Murphy July 2, 2015 at 11:21 am
“The old Halton Arp Intrinsic Redshift/Electric Universe/Steady State Universe. I do enjoy “competing” theories. Arp has some interesting ideas and (old) data but intrinsic redshift seems to have more holes than Doppler/expansion redshift. ”
I do also enjoy competing theories. I think the EU theories might have some good points even if they may have many wrong ideas.
Not sure why do you mention that intrinsic red shift theory has so many holes? Can you help pointing to some?
I found this experiment that should support intrinsic redshift:
“Electrons in the plasma can perform SHM and any electron that can perform SHM can absorb and reemit photons of light.”…
See also:
“Energy lost to an electron during emission or absorption”
george e. smith
July 2, 2015 at 4:11 pm
“Well electro-magnetic forces may be billions (with a B) times stronger than gravity; but gravity has the advantage; IT SUCKS !”
Well actually when “looking at dark matter” I find it really sucks. If it interacts with gravity why does it stay around the galaxy in the form of a giant ball? Now that is really odd, it is there for no reason but just to make the stars in the galaxy to move as they move… Dark matter being there for no reason just to “fix my theory” that otherwise would not run, looks a bit stretched to me:
Why it does stay there as is and it does not fall into the galaxy?

Reply to  higley7
July 5, 2015 10:25 am

Dark mater is invented to account for the universe not disintegrating.
We don’t need competing ideas to get rid of DM, applying relativity to gravity may do:

Lars P.
Reply to  higley7
July 6, 2015 2:28 pm

July 5, 2015 at 10:25 am
“Dark mater is invented to account for the universe not disintegrating.”
Sorry for late answer Vuk, I thought dark matter was invented to explain the rotation of the stars in the Galaxy – see below:
See typical rotation curve:
“velocities in these outer regions were expected to decrease in accordance to Kepler’s law. But they did not.”
“this seems to imply that the mass M inside a galaxy increases in proportion to distance r from the center, even in dim regions near the edge where very little starlight originates. “

July 2, 2015 3:59 am

Well then … let ‘er rip!

July 2, 2015 4:03 am

Eventually everything will become nothing.

Reply to  David
July 2, 2015 4:40 am

We can forestall this entropy thing. Every single molecule of CO2 helps ……

george e. smith
Reply to  David
July 2, 2015 6:02 am

Well isn’t that the ultimate result of “averaging” ??

Physics Major
Reply to  David
July 2, 2015 10:01 am

Only fair, since nothing became everything!

k carmichael
July 2, 2015 4:04 am

The depiction above when analyzed from a purely Freudian perspective tells us exactly what is on the minds of the proponents. Apparently there is nothing new under the sun

David A
July 2, 2015 4:04 am

Do these folk really know what they are talking about? What exactly is this space that is expanding ever quicker?

Reply to  David A
July 2, 2015 4:11 am

” What exactly is this space that is expanding ever quicker?”
I wonder what surrounds this space that is expanding ever quicker?

David A
Reply to  Paul
July 2, 2015 4:30 am

Aye, as well.

Reply to  Paul
July 2, 2015 4:47 am

Nothing needs to surround it. Nothing surrounds it in the three dimensions that are expanding.
David A,
Scientists know surprisingly lot about ’empty’ space. It is interesting that so much can to be said about it. So it is rather non-trivial to say what is this space.

David A
Reply to  Paul
July 2, 2015 5:09 am

Yet still, no answer to my non trivial question.

David A
Reply to  Paul
July 2, 2015 5:11 am

…and Hugh, the dimension are in fact described as boundless, so how can they not be?

David A
Reply to  Paul
July 2, 2015 5:13 am

comment image

R Taylor
Reply to  Paul
July 2, 2015 6:20 am

Clearly, the surrounding space has a cyan-ish blob, a magenta-ish blob and an orange-ish blob in it. I think it is more probably that the orange-ish blob is really yellow-ish.

Reply to  Paul
July 2, 2015 10:50 am

Thank you RTaylor,
Simple, honest, straightforward logic (and just as useful as any other answer).

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Paul
July 2, 2015 2:39 pm

Warning: I am not a physicist nor do I play one on TV
As I understand the explanation of inflation, the 3D space we occupy is analogous to the surface of a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, all points on the surface move away from each other. Remember, the balloons surface is our 3D space. To get from point A to point B in our space, you travel across the surface of the balloon. So the answer to what surrounds space, is that the question is meaningless (assuming the analogy has any resemblance to reality) since the only thing that exists is the surface of the balloon. No doubt rgb@duke can provide a far more lucid explanation, but that’s how I understand it.

Reply to  Paul
July 5, 2015 9:17 pm

No doubt rgb@duke can provide a far more lucid explanation, but that’s how I understand it.

No, that’s pretty much how I understand it too.

Reply to  David A
July 2, 2015 4:44 am

It can be anything, that’s why they need more money…for research, of course.

Reply to  Sam
July 2, 2015 10:40 am

How do they know it went “BANG” if nobody was there to hear it?

Reply to  Sam
July 2, 2015 3:19 pm

You hear the bang, just listen carefully as the listening monks do.:)

Reply to  David A
July 2, 2015 5:22 am

It is another unverifiable cosmological modeling construct. They haven’t even proved there was a big bang in the first place.

george e. smith
Reply to  sunsettommy
July 2, 2015 6:10 am

Well it was a very little bang. And it must have happened right in the middle of nowhere.
But apparently all the really interesting “Archeo-Physics” happened in the first 10^-43 seconds; or was it 10^-34 seconds, which is a Billion (with a B) times longer ??
Yes it really does seem that this place is becoming rather “old man” like; every damn thing just falling apart. Well I guess the ladies also deteriorate eventually.
g > G

Reply to  sunsettommy
July 2, 2015 6:34 am

in the first place
more likely a supernova explosion in our parent universe created our universe, accelerating our universe to relativistic speeds, such that we exist far in the future of our parent universe due to time dilation.. what we perceive as the cosmic background radiation is the event horizon. what our parent universe perceives is the black hole left by our birth.

Reply to  sunsettommy
July 2, 2015 7:47 am

First, there was nothing.
Then, it exploded.

Reply to  sunsettommy
July 2, 2015 8:26 am

I read that the Big Bang pissed a lot of people off because of it’s philosophical implications, and so a lot of effort has gone into replacing it with something less finite and more steady-state-ish.
Well, they’ve utterly failed because the evidence just doesn’t support any other model. HOWEVER, we should never let data stand in our way when they is an a-priori belief in danger! Now the news on the street is that some group has scheduled a party for a decade or so hence when the BBT will be pronounced dead and the SST reborn, in the form of a giant machine that makes new universes forever and ever, amen.

Reply to  David A
July 2, 2015 5:34 am

They found that stars werent moving apart from eachother at a steady pace as they expected instead they were accelerating.
They filled in the formula so the math would add up with a variable called dark energy, (positive acceleration), as an explanation.
And they have backed it up with other experiments.
The big rip comes from the fact that matter at highspeeds lose their bonds and get pulled apart into atoms.

Reply to  ohflow
July 2, 2015 5:50 am

They don’t know if the stars are moving apart, or if the intermediate space is distorting their perception. The scientific method was introduced specifically to constrain speculation in a frame-based philosophy, “science”, to curb secular excess. The wild speculation that leads to a conflation of logical domains.

David A
Reply to  ohflow
July 2, 2015 5:52 am they, the galaxies, appear to be expanding with more space between them, but what is this space beyond three infinite dimensions, and if infinite, how can it expand?

Reply to  ohflow
July 2, 2015 5:59 am

Thats the thing David A. They measured because they expected nothing, instead they found something and named it dark energy. If you’re onto something more philosophical then I am not very good at that. I just have a basic understanding of space.

David A
Reply to  ohflow
July 2, 2015 6:11 am

Not really philosophical, but conceptual. Three boundless directions as the illustration above depicts. The squares in the illustration are nothing more then a mathematical concept of relativity in an infinite field. As soon as you do anything definable by numbers, you then “measure” or have relative time and space. But the three dimensions are both timeless and infinite, so I have no concept of how they expand.

Reply to  ohflow
July 2, 2015 6:22 am

Afaik neither time nor size even closely as established as dark energy. Really hope someone far more scholared than me could answer you. Sorry 🙁

Reply to  ohflow
July 2, 2015 7:06 am

the 4th dimension is what the first 3 are limited to. outside space is time.
entropy points to an expanding universe, at least from our viewpoint.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  David A
July 2, 2015 10:18 am

No that wouldn’t work. While blue and green are primary colors, blue and yellow hues overlayed on each other strike our eyes as green. Our eyes have strong wavelength sensors for red, green, and blue, and have less strong sensors to pick up other wavelengths. When we see a mixture of yellow and blue, our color sensors see it as it does when viewing pure green (ie the same pattern of pickup by our sensors happen for mixed yellow and blue, and for pure green). If the plane in question were yellow, the figure would be less visible as a three dimensional figure because the overlayed areas would show up as green, making it difficult to see all three planes clearly.
Obviously, when school is out, I don’t have enough sh** to do because all this useless information in my brain gets restless and demands to be thought of.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 2, 2015 10:22 am

My response was to R Taylor July 2, 2015 at 6:20 am, who commented on David A’s 3 dimensional plane and its colors. Damn the nested comments design.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 2, 2015 10:25 am

Who was responding to the colors in the original post! LOLOLOL! My bad. Time for a beer.

Reply to  David A
July 2, 2015 3:14 pm

“Yet still, no answer to my non trivial question.”
Right. ‘One madman can ask more than ten wise can answer.’ I’m not calling you mad, though.
“…and Hugh, the dimension are in fact described as boundless, so how can they not be?”
Yes. I think you got a concept and its description mixed up. Don’t try philosophy.

David A
Reply to  Hugh
July 2, 2015 3:39 pm

Well Hugh, your imagination is better then mind if you can envision an end to the 3 dimensions depicted in the schematic I provided.

July 2, 2015 4:07 am

Oh..another model to explain reality… about this….there is THAT which never came into existence, nor will it ever go out of existence…if it were not so, there would be never be any refuge from coming into existence and going out of existence…THAT is absolute reality…

Reply to  Ben D
July 2, 2015 4:10 am

..the extra be should not be…

Silent Bob
July 2, 2015 4:08 am

I’m waiting for the time when the digital physics/computational universe discussion gets more attention.

Reply to  Silent Bob
July 2, 2015 10:56 am

That’s the one that can explains it all … and if something doesn’t fit it can just discounted as a bug in the code.
Also, over time the cooling systems fail.

July 2, 2015 4:09 am

“… the scientists can make predictions that can be compared with experiment and observation.”
Ah. Proper scientific research then, involving experiment and observation. Quite different from climastrology.

Reply to  Admad
July 2, 2015 6:57 am

That’s the part that really stood out for me. Too much negativity here, IMO, in light of that. This, where we are talking about theories making predictions to be compared to reality, is real science, and it is refreshing to see it.

July 2, 2015 4:12 am

So Global Warming will rip atoms apart?
Could we be any doomeder?

Rob R
July 2, 2015 4:22 am

But I recall there was at least one thing that does travel faster than light. It is well known that “bad news” has this property.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Rob R
July 2, 2015 4:43 am

Actually two, lies are even faster. “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” – Winston Churchill

Steve P
Reply to  The Original Mike M
July 2, 2015 5:49 am

One may wonder why the truth had its pants off in the first place.

Steve P
Reply to  The Original Mike M
July 2, 2015 6:29 am

One may also wonder where WC got his special knowledge of the speed of lies.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
July 2, 2015 8:31 am

p Well we’ll have to tell a lie about THAT!

The Original Mike M
Reply to  The Original Mike M
July 3, 2015 4:07 am

Steve P – One may wonder why the truth had its pants off in the first place.
It was… the naked truth. (groan)

Reply to  Rob R
July 2, 2015 6:45 am

does travel faster than light
The propagation speed of gravity is not known and remains one of the fundamental problems in physics. In spite of considerable research, gravity waves have not been observed, which are one of the predictions of limiting gravity to light speed,
unlike light, gravity is not affected by gravity. thus it is unknown if relativity applies to gravity as it does to energy and matter. It seems unlikely that general relativity would apply to gravity, as GR is a result of gravity. Special relativity is a result of the limited speed of light, so it would appear the SR would only apply to gravity if the speed of gravity is limited to light speed.
This leads to interesting problems if our universe is a daughter within a parent universe. is dark energy in fact the gravitational attraction of our parent, and our parent’s parent, in some infinite fractal beyond the event horizon?

Reply to  ferdberple
July 2, 2015 10:25 am

Well an astronomer specializing in celestial mechanics shows that gravity speed is greater than 2×10^10 c. Of course the usual way to reconcile with Einstein’s perceptions is to start adding fudge factors much like they do in quantum mechanics.
Then there is this by physicist Tony Rothman about physics in general:
“Nevertheless, as a physicist travels along his (in this case) career, the hairline cracks in the edifice become more apparent, as does the dirt swept under the rug, the fudges and the wholesale swindles, with the disconcerting result that the totality occasionally appears more like Bruegel’s Tower of Babel as dreamt by a modern slumlord, a ramshackle structure of compartmentalized models soldered together into a skewed heap of explanations as the whole jury-rigged monstrosity tumbles skyward.
It would be surprising if the strange world of subatomic and quantum physics did not lead the field in mysteries, conceptual ambiguities and paradoxes, and it does not disappoint. The standard model of particle physics, for instance (the one containing all the quarks and gluons), has no fewer than 19 adjustable parameters, about 60 years after Enrico Fermi exclaimed, “With four parameters I can fit an elephant!” Suffice to say, “beauty” is a term not frequently applied to the standard model.”

Rob R
Reply to  ferdberple
July 2, 2015 2:57 pm

Grave news there. There is a certain gravity to bad news, and to lies as well.

Robert of Ottawa
July 2, 2015 4:25 am

Thanks for the morning mayhem

July 2, 2015 4:37 am

So all CO2 molecules will be ripped apart! This is great news for the coral reefs!

Reply to  chilemike
July 2, 2015 11:16 am


The Original Mike M
July 2, 2015 4:41 am

The chart is wrong at first inspection showing earth exploding ~20 billion years from now, earth will be swallowed by the sun in a red giant stage long before then.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
July 2, 2015 4:50 am

Stop nit-picking! 🙂 A good end-of-world prophecy needs the Earth.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
July 2, 2015 6:12 am

And before that happens, solar winds will have finally stripped our atmosphere away.

Reply to  The Original Mike M
July 2, 2015 10:30 am

I so want to watch all that happen. Oh wait…….

July 2, 2015 4:43 am

Universe ends! Film at 11:00.”

Reply to  H.R.
July 2, 2015 7:03 am

“In related news today, the EPA announced it is working on new regulations to limit the amount of debris produced by the ending of the universe.
An anonymous source at the EPA was reported as saying, “According to the latest scientific studies, for every 5% reduction in apocalyptic debris, the average person can expect to live 37 minutes longer. This is a startling discovery and we have decided we must act now for the health and safety of all of humanity. Therefore, we are issuing an emergency directive that the universe must not exceed 1970 levels of apocalyptic debris by the year 2021. Non-compliance will result in heavy fines.”
Most major environmental groups have already released statements supporting the emergency directive.
And now, let’s go over to Chuck for the weather… Chuck…”
“Thanks, Dan.”

Reply to  H.R.
July 2, 2015 9:43 am

“And our requirement for you people is that you must simply sit on your ass, or else.”

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 2, 2015 4:50 am

It’s all emptiness. Why do I bother?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 2, 2015 4:54 am

…. for the children and the children’s children ??

Reply to  philincalifornia
July 2, 2015 6:00 am

For [unplanned] Posterity. At least that was the traditional consensus. The opinions diverged in the 70s with the discovery of anthropogenic abortion rights… or perhaps rites. Since then, we have engaged in sequestration of 1 in 6 carbon-based humanoid lifeforms in order to mitigate the perceived threat of global “ripping apart”.

July 2, 2015 4:50 am

Next press release from the Alarmists:

” Carbon Dioxide From Burning Fossil Fuels Speeds Cosmological Ripping ”


Walt D.
Reply to  FerdinandAkin
July 2, 2015 4:57 am

You took the words right out of my mouth.

JJM Gommers
Reply to  Walt D.
July 2, 2015 5:53 am

So you say CO2 is the catalyst for the Big Rip, or RIP??

July 2, 2015 4:51 am

There is just no end to the proofs of universe destroying catastrophically adjusted anthropogenic global warming (CAAGW).

Reply to  paullm
July 2, 2015 11:18 am

Only 22 billion years left, it’s worse than we thought….

Gary Hladik
Reply to  Cube
July 2, 2015 3:09 pm

Is that 22 billion years from now, or 22 billion years from The Big Bang (about 14 billion years ago)? I need to make plans…

Richard M
July 2, 2015 4:53 am

I wonder how this works with the new research claiming the universe is a hologram. I have a feeling we are still and long, long way from understanding reality.

Reply to  Richard M
July 2, 2015 6:54 am

I understand reality very well.
It keeps taking cash out of my bank account.

Reply to  Richard M
July 2, 2015 12:58 pm


July 2, 2015 4:54 am

Until “dark energy” is figured out, you really can’t make that prediction yet. Bottom line, there’s little difference between a big rip and the older theory of simple “heat death” — both end up w/a dearth of matter & energy. The heat death just takes longer.

Bill Illis
Reply to  beng135
July 2, 2015 5:39 am

That is exactly right.
We have to understand dark energy and dark matter (at least a little, if not completely) before one can make a theoretical prediction of what they do 100 trillion years in the future.
This is also the case for climate science. 100 years out? when we do not even understand what is really happening right now.
Predictions, experimentation, data confirms or not, replication over and over again until 100% sure. That is how we really understand the real universe and real physics (and anything else for that matter).

george e. smith
Reply to  Bill Illis
July 2, 2015 6:42 am

Well Bill you really hit it right on the button.
The reason some people think nothing is happening, is that they believe that the real universe is sitting and waiting for the “average” that it is supposed to respond too.
But the average was always some time in the past, so it is too late to react to it. So everything physically real happens right now; cause and effect are simultaneous, at least down to the shortest time scales we can currently measure (maybe atto-seconds).
So let’s not wait for the “Grim Ripper !”
I think I’ll go and get me a beer.
g >> G

Reply to  Bill Illis
July 2, 2015 7:09 am

I am uncomfortable with the “dark matter” theory. To me it sounds like a variation on the old “Luminous Ether” theory of the 1800’s. Of course, the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of luminous ether, but the idea seems to live on.

July 2, 2015 5:04 am

Ho, hum. Another theoretical, mathematical, sound-and-fury tour-de-force signifying…, er…, what??? It would be nice if the research funds allocated to such mental manipulations were allocated instead to solid, evidence-based science.

Berényi Péter
July 2, 2015 5:25 am

Excellent. As soon as all particles with non zero rest mass are ripped apart, time &. distance loses its meaning, because no clock can be constructed from massless radiation, so only conformal structure of spacetime is preserved. Therefore an exceedingly dilute &. cold universe, ripping apart, is equivalent to one just inflating from a hot dense state, that is, the Big Rip can be connected smoothly to a subsequent Big Bang. I believe Sir Roger Penrose had an idea like that.
However, one has to be careful with black holes. What happens to them during a Big Rip, specifically, what happens to their entropy?
For even a cyclic universe needs an efficient entropy sink, otherwise no arrow of time is possible.

george e. smith
Reply to  Berényi Péter
July 2, 2015 6:46 am

How about that BP. After all that s*** happens, Maxwell /Hertz EM radiation still survives.
It is the Planckian black body notion that is the real BS.

Reply to  Berényi Péter
July 2, 2015 9:45 am

They apparently just dissolve. Kinda anticlimatic for such lethal structures.

David L. Hagen
July 2, 2015 5:39 am

“Big Rip” or “Big Roar”?
Before the “Big Rip” I expect the “Big Roar” 2 Peter 3:10

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

george e. smith
Reply to  David L. Hagen
July 2, 2015 6:47 am

Well there can’t be a “big roar” because nobody will be there to hear it, nor any compressible medium to conduct the sound waves.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  george e. smith
July 2, 2015 8:25 am

george e. smioth Some will chose to then hear harps. Others will chose not to.

Reply to  David L. Hagen
July 6, 2015 2:37 pm

I’m way late, but had a full weekend. Interestingly, the Greek word here for dissolved is the word luo, to loose. Implying that the uneducated Peter was predicting that the universe will end when the bonds that hold things together are dissolved. Serendipity with the above? Pure luck? Or advance knowledge?

July 2, 2015 5:39 am

The scientific method has been ripped from science, ending with men and women daydreaming while inferring images from the amorphous clouds floating above. The continuity and uniformity is breathtaking as they construct unicorns and castles in the sky.
That said, we “know” the universe began with spontaneous conception, and it will end with spontaneous eruption; but, we still don’t know or are not willing to publicly admit when human life begins. A paradox to occupy the dreamers’ day.

Reply to  n.n
July 2, 2015 8:10 am

What is “you”? Where do “you” begin and “not-you” end?
There is an oxygen molecule just beyond your nose. It is clearly not “you”. You inhale, and it rushes into your nasal passages. At what point does it cease to be “not-you” and become “you”? Is it when it enters your bloodstream — or does it suffice to enter your airstream? Your mitochondria — those litle intracellular entities with their own, different from “yours”, genetic code: are those “you”?
We have problems with borders, edges and boundaries. Boundaries are needed to tell “this” from “that”, and we can (and do) get into fights as to whether the boundary itself is a part of “this” (since without the boundary, we would not be able to recognize “this”), or whether it is a part of “that” (for the reciprocal reason), or an entity unto itself, which begs the question of the boundary between the boundary and the thing(s) bounded.
We have problems with infinity, with imagining things (universe, time) with no end point — and yet, once we imagine a beginning or and end, we immediately wonder: what was before the beginning? what will be after the end? what is beyond the outer edge?
The ancient Greek Parmenides proved, logically, that change is impossible, and no thinker since then has been able to refute him — and yet change is an everyday experience.
The trick is that the world of discourse — whether in words or mathematical symbols — is, and shall ever be, different from the world.

Poor Yorek
Reply to  mellyrn
July 2, 2015 9:36 am

“The ancient Greek Parmenides proved, logically, that change is impossible, and no thinker since then has been able to refute him — and yet change is an everyday experience.”
Aristotle for one. See:

The Original Mike M
July 2, 2015 5:46 am

I’m sticking with my idea that gravimetric attractive force reverses at some great distance the same way as the nuclear attractive force . It eliminates the need for a dark matter theory IMO but likely impossible to measure the effect, (eg Coulomb’s experiment). Imagine if gravity actually decreased to zero at say 100000(?) light years and reversed beyond that into a repulsive force, would that not explain the acceleration of the universe?
Something like (ignoring relativity for purpose of illustration), F=(1-e^(r-Q))*G*(m1*m2/r^2) where Q is the the critical null distance, where gravitational attraction is zero. The way I constructed this example formula, beyond that distance Q, the flipped repulsive force grows so dramatically with further distance that the universe would be accelerated apart at relativistic speeds not much further away than Q and therefore become unobservable to us. (Kind of like an inverted event horizon of a black hole.)

george e. smith
Reply to  The Original Mike M
July 2, 2015 6:55 am

Personally I like e^-1/x^2 … ( exp (-1/x^2))
It and all its derivatives are zero at x =0.
So it is nowhere and going nowhere, with zero acceleration, and zero rate of increase of acceleration etc….
So how the hell does it ever get to 0.37 at x = 1 ??
Enquiring minds want to know.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 2, 2015 7:24 am

Well, George, as I have mused at times, it may be that X=0 is nonphysical — there’s nothing smaller than the Planck distance (granular space-time). If so, some of the infinity problems of General Relativity go away….

Reply to  The Original Mike M
July 2, 2015 6:56 am

Imagine if gravity actually …
modified gravity theories would explain the galaxy rotation problem. why does the outer edge of our galaxy travels much faster than predicted by our current understanding of gravity?

Reply to  ferdberple
July 2, 2015 10:35 am

It’s those pesky sub-sized shrunken hydrogen/hydrino atoms postulated (& supposedly proven) by Randell Mills and that we can’t see therefore causing all that dark matter (and maybe dark energy).

July 2, 2015 5:54 am

Universe to end with the sound of a humongous fart. That stinks.

July 2, 2015 6:00 am

[Snip. ‘David Socrates’, ‘beckleybud’, and a couple dozen other sockpuppet names. ~mod.]

July 2, 2015 6:09 am

This sounds like what happened after the Burrito Surprise I had at the local Tacqueria the other day.

July 2, 2015 6:22 am

Just last week the “Big Bang” caused the universe ring like a crystal glass. Maybe the “Big Rip” is the finale

Reply to  OK S.
July 2, 2015 6:28 am

Is the Universe Ringing Like a Crystal Glass? , from the University of Southern Mississippi.

Reply to  OK S.
July 2, 2015 6:40 am

The actual paper (Observation of Discrete Oscillations in a Model-Independent Plot of Cosmological Scale Factor versus Lookback Time and Scalar Field Model) is behind a paywall: H. I. Ringermacher and L. R. Mead 2015 The Astronomical Journal 149 137. doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/137.
Some of the charts are at Ringermacher’s website–linked to by the Southern Miss article.

July 2, 2015 6:25 am

The invention of dark matter & dark energy reminds me of the engineering school “variable correction factor”(VCF). This is defined as that number that can be added, subtracted, multiplied or divided into your answer to get the answer the professor wanted. In order to make the gravitational equations balance F= G X M1 X M2/R^2 to account for the velocity of stars rotating in a galaxy and the acceleration of the rate of expansion of galaxies, they created a “VCF” comprised of a mass that cannot be detected and an energy that cannot be detected. Unfortunately usage of the VCF seldom got a passing grade in engineering school and we really had to get the equations right.

Reply to  Billyjack
July 2, 2015 6:58 am

In climate science they renamed the VCF as “adjustments”. now observations match theory, proving the theory was correct all along.

Reply to  Billyjack
July 2, 2015 9:31 am

Dark matter and dark energy were invented to correct for gross errors in the calculated mass of stars. It seems that all of the laws of physics are in effect all of the time – not just those that the are assumed to have bearing on the problem at hand. Stellar mass is presently obtained from binary stars using Kepler’s equations which fail to consider the velocity of individual atoms effect on centrifugal force known as the Eotvos effect. Although the effect is small on earth, on a star, it is huge due to the high velocity of individual atoms at the nearly 30 million Kelvin core temperatures found in a typical star like our sun.

July 2, 2015 6:31 am

Silly boys, still trying to come up with an answer to things so far beyond human capabilities and understanding. Your answer is in the 66 books of the Bible.

Reply to  John
July 3, 2015 1:44 am

No it isn’t.

July 2, 2015 6:37 am

My personal heretical speculation is that the Big Bang will be found to have been a black hole exploding (they have to get really enormous to do this – a significant fraction of the mass of the observable universe). Beyond our observable horizon is a universe teeming with enormous black holes embedded in galaxies. Every so often one explodes, annihilating galaxies and creating a local universe.
Everybody’s got to believe in something but I believe it’s too early to have a beer.

July 2, 2015 6:37 am

Universe destroyed!
Women, minorities hardest hit.

Rob R
Reply to  TonyL
July 2, 2015 3:10 pm

And children?

July 2, 2015 6:43 am

It all boils down to the acidification of the Universe

The Original Mike M
Reply to  JP
July 3, 2015 4:13 am

Speaking along such lines… could the universe have a net charge?

July 2, 2015 6:50 am

Did you notice that they didn’t actually mark on the graphic when star formation began? That’s because they don’t really know and there is some pretty good evidence star formation began just 800 million years after the Big Bang which throws some things in the theory out of kilter.

Reply to  rah
July 2, 2015 9:41 am

“which throws some things in the theory out of kilter.”
Not mine. The stars formed early because there was debris everywhere.

Harry Passfield
July 2, 2015 6:50 am

I just knew it would all end in tears!

Reply to  Harry Passfield
July 3, 2015 9:30 am

Nice one, Harry. A real ripper. Read it yesterday and it didn’t soak in until this morning.

Harry Passfield
July 2, 2015 6:55 am

Oh, and AGW will end with a big rip-off! (And tears – the wet sort).

M Courtney
July 2, 2015 6:59 am

My take on the expanding universe.
Consider the start of the Universe – did it have rotational energy? If it expanded (or inflated) entirely evenly then maybe no. But if there were any areas of greater mass (more galaxies) then inevitably yes.
So the universe is rotating (in the 4th dimension probably, that gives an axis and so a linearity in the dimension of time).
And it’s interacting with the nothing on the edge of the universe. The nothing is “without form and void” but it has potential. So particles must pop in and out of existence just beyond the universe – but without the spin. That stretches the edge of the universe – making an apparently expanding universe.
It’s like a roll of plasticine hanging off the edge of a Gramophone player form the centre of the disk. As the player turns the plasticine stretches and so the universe (measured by the length of the plasticine) seems to expand.
The beauty of this idea is that it explains:
1) The linearity of time
2) Where the energy to expand came from (it’s always been there).
3) What’s outside the universe. It agrees with the standard model about fundamental particles appearing wherever they have potential – even outside the universe.

george e. smith
Reply to  M Courtney
July 2, 2015 4:25 pm

I really enjoyed the time I spent during the plasticine era. Whole lot of interesting things formed out of nothing in the plasticine era.

July 2, 2015 7:01 am

But CO2 survives and continues to build up to dangerous levels, threatening any rip survivors.

July 2, 2015 7:04 am

big rip in 100 trillion years! mark that down in the calendar…..better get working on that bucket list, time is running out.

Clif Westin
July 2, 2015 7:04 am

I’ve always wondered that if the distance between galaxies is new space appearing (the dimes on a balloon model), where does all this new space come from?
So many basic questions to answer about space that it makes us look rather primitive. Answering some of these questions could solve many, if not all, of our energy needs.

Retired Engineer John
July 2, 2015 7:09 am

Is the paper available and is it on the internet? I would like to read it.

Gary D.
July 2, 2015 7:15 am

I am hoping someone to will post the End Of the Universe party from “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” (TV series edition).

george e. smith
Reply to  Gary D.
July 2, 2015 4:27 pm

Do the Big Rippers have a booth or a mobile at Burning Man ??

July 2, 2015 7:18 am

I enjoy a thought exercise as much as the next guy, but I just fail to see the benefit of paying highly intelligent people to speculate about such things as “how the universe came to be” and “how the universe will end”. What freakin’ difference does it make? Is it possible that this area of study might produce a bit of practical knowledge which may be useful to the human race within the next 10, 100 or even 1,000 years? I’m sorry if I come across as a curmudgeon, but I’d much rather see this caliber of brain power focused on more practical physics like energy production/transmission, propulsion to/in space, gravity, etc.
Sorry for the rant. I think I need another cup of coffee…

Reply to  Russell
July 2, 2015 7:55 am


The Original Mike M
Reply to  Russell
July 3, 2015 4:36 am

” Is it possible that this area of study might produce a bit of practical knowledge which may be useful to the human race within the next 10, 100 or even 1,000 years?”
Very. Most advances in fundamental science come from playful curiosity which are parlayed into practical applications later, sometimes a LOT later. (e.g. Kepler was never tasked with figuring out how to get to the moon.)

David A
Reply to  Russell
July 3, 2015 5:29 am

Russell, at the very least this speculation produced the comedy, the Big Bang, ad that is worth something.

July 2, 2015 7:20 am

A bunch of grad students are running math scenarios and hanging the fate of the universe on the results.
Proof comes in about 22 billion years… maybe.
I’m glad they’re trying new relativistic theories. Only they need to determine provable factors to validate their theory, now, in the present, not eventually.
Big bang; OK, a terrible name for an event mankind is not near clarifying. Still, it is a beginning.
As far as the ever increasing speed of universe’s matter dispersal, I doubt it is a new relativity secret. Watch it be something as simple as matter released into an infinite void of absolute vacuum. The pressure of the universe and all matter continue to push towards filling the infinite void.
But can matter reach a point where matter itself dissolves and evaporates? Not unless those carbon – carbon – oxygen bonds are lot weaker than we think. Perhaps increasing CO2 will help prevent eventual dissolution of the Earth?
Sleep well alarmists, as surely the universe will eventually end and will satisfy even the most rabid alarmist. All ya gotta do is wait… Quietly!

Pamela Gray
Reply to  ATheoK
July 2, 2015 7:44 am

Lol! Be vewy, vewy qwiet!

Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 2, 2015 7:58 am


Reed Coray
July 2, 2015 7:28 am

Robert Frost said it best:
“Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.”
Say goodnight Gracie

Reply to  Reed Coray
July 2, 2015 8:02 am

Goodnight Gracie!
Classic Burns and Gracie!

Pamela Gray
July 2, 2015 7:38 am

When I was a teenager, I learned that the periodic table was not filled in as new elements were found. It was filled in with likely elements yet to be discovered. Dmitri Mendeleev, though not the author of the first periodic table done in the form of a cylinder, described the likely properties of missing elements. To describe something unknown (similar to the “missing” forces in the above post) based on mathematical principles, known laws and relationships, is the ultimate in thought experiment. I love it.

July 2, 2015 7:47 am

When I was 10 I wanted to be an astrophysicist, when I was 14 I wondered how many jobs for astrophysicists there were, I fell into electronics, good career. many years later I realized there would have been plenty of jobs, and I wished I’d got to spend my life with telescopes and trying to understand the Universe.
But this is much, much different than Climate science, astrophysicists are trying to spend trillions in overturning modern society making us use windmills for power for gosh sakes.
But it will be people like the ones writing this paper, studying string theory, studying the Big Bang, smashing elementary particles together at ever increasing energies, who will learn (if it’s possible) to control gravity, learn how to control matter, help us move from relying on chemistry for energy, learn how to fuse hydrogen, bring us the future, if we don’t do this, at some point we will run out of chemical power at least in the amount to run a space age society.

Reply to  micro6500
July 2, 2015 8:37 am

astrophysicists are trying to spend trillions in overturning modern society

astrophysicists are not trying to spend trillions in overturning modern society

David A
Reply to  micro6500
July 3, 2015 5:32 am

good post

Gary Pearse
July 2, 2015 7:51 am

“.. It is predicated on a type of “phantom” dark energy that gets stronger over time.”
Before we even know there is such a thing as dark energy/matter we are now talking about a Lord of the Rings “phantom type”.
I thought it was only climate science and the social sciences (socials went into Marx’s politics a long time ago) that had been ripped by post-normal pathology but, yeah, its the whole works. Lord Kelvin often gets mocked over his view in the late 19 century that there will be only a few loose ends left to discover. He was just a man a few years before his time, there were actually only a half a dozen significant things to discover at the time. Note that these cosmo guys are going to experiment with high powered computers to see if their theory is “viable”. Sound familiar? NCAR and MetOffice and CRU already have the T-shirt. They will get the really powerful one that will make it “viable” and it will be called a discovery. Like Higgs particle – they cooked up a discovery with expensive equipment so that they could report it before Higgs died.
I guess if everything in the here and now has been discovered, it’s not their fault that nothing is left but virtual reality exercises. These seem like the sort of loose ends to be tidied up Lord Kelvin had in mind. I do think there should be at least one guy working on debunking of dark matter/energy and strings, though so that something big about gravity CAN be discovered. Einstein’s gravity recognized Newton’s to be a special case of E’s formula. I’m sure E’s formula will turn out to be a special case of the real one.

Sweet Old Bob
July 2, 2015 8:00 am

Ah…,the Ivory Towers…!
Younger women ! Faster computers ! More money ! Older whisky !
Rinse , repeat ….(8>))

Steve P
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
July 2, 2015 8:10 am

With all that stuff, who needs to drink?

July 2, 2015 8:04 am

Durn! I thought I was the “big rip”…outclassed by the universe. Again.

July 2, 2015 8:09 am

It must be dark CO2 whats hiding the missing heat. It is also the cause of expanding grants, which will end the economy of our universe in the Big Ripoff.
Requiescat In Pace

July 2, 2015 8:22 am

The Big Bang never happened! How in physics do you create something from nothing? Did it start from an infinitely small particle? We do not understand what infinity is! All we have is formulas and more formulas and renormalization where infinity exists in their equations. When we do not know, we call it inflation, dark matter or dark energy to fit our hypotheses. When we find that the red shift may mean age instead of speed, thereby disagreeing with the Big Bang, the dogma quiets the investigations. The mainstream cosmology is not much different then the problems we have with global warming. If you do not believe, you will not be funded in your research.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Earl
July 2, 2015 9:17 am

It likely did. It is a delightful exercise to contemplate “NOTHING”. Not a vacuum, or space with nothing in it, No Space, No time, No Nothing! It is quite a task to image Nothing.
From that very difficult abstraction, we don’t simply get “something” as you put it Earl. We get Everything.
We get, all of physics, we get the concept of Math, we get ideation, we get space, we get time. we also get the paradoxes.
Until something better comes along, the discipline of science requires respect of the big bang theory.
Here is Leonard Susskind stating his 4 possibilities to the explain the basis for the big bang and our fine-tuned (knife edge) anthropic universe: He is deeply and surprisingly honest.
Time stamps:
6:05 ( God, accident, Who knows, we’ll never know exactly within infinite possibilities)

Jim G1
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
July 2, 2015 11:16 am

Early universe acoustics and quantum theory imply an infinite universe in which the big bang never occurred or was a ” local ” event.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
July 2, 2015 2:43 pm

I heard about this theory. It has the disadvantage of not having any evidence and is speculative of “before” big bang(s). IMO, it is an attempt to circumvent the obvious implication of a first cause.

Jim G1
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
July 2, 2015 3:05 pm

Read the post. Laws of physics break down before the singularity of the big bang occurs. The theory is an attempt to unify quantum physics with relativity. This is subsequent to the acoustic and other observations which imply a universe infinite in size.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
July 2, 2015 8:52 pm

JimG1 OK Man. I will read it but I am busy for a few days. I will get back to it.

David A
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
July 3, 2015 5:36 am

now there is a contradiction.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Earl
July 2, 2015 1:41 pm

One day Nothing added nothing to nothing and nothing plus nothing equals everything…..or something like that. Right?

July 2, 2015 8:37 am

I have a table booked to watch it happen.
There will be a big band as well,
to play it all out.
Oh! the very thought of it.
I have my towel too.

Reply to  Twobob
July 2, 2015 11:37 am

I always get the table nearest the window.

July 2, 2015 8:38 am

“The only way to do this is to use powerful computers to analyze the complex equations numerically. In this fashion the scientists can make predictions that can be compared with experiment and observation.”
Let’s hope they make those comparisons and disgard those models when they don’t jive. Doesn’t happen in all disciplines.

July 2, 2015 8:47 am

so all the CO2 molecules will be ripped apart?

Paul Westhaver
July 2, 2015 8:47 am

This is another HOW TO.
The inescapable reality, whether it is big Bang to accelerated Fizzle, or otherwise, the end result is completely consistent with the Borde Vilenkin, Guth theorem.
Not sure how the “viscosity” in this article interacts with the overall geodesics.
Here is Alex Vilenkin presenting the theory. Only 8 minutes.

Joel O’Bryan
July 2, 2015 8:47 am

In this fashion the scientists can make predictions that can be compared with experiment and observation.

Isn’t that a quaint concept. So I would imagine that when the computer prediction fails to match observation then one of two things can happen.
1. If their grant and/or job depends on the model correctness, then the observations are wrong and they need adjustments, cherrypickings, and dubious statistcal treatments.
2. They can be honest scientists and say, “Our model was apparently wrong. We’re not sure why at the present. There is something(s) fundamental to the problem we don’t understand.”
Now when literally Trillions of future Euros, Pound sterling, and Dollars in new taxes to be controlled and spent depend on #1, is there really any doubt about the lengths and depths of depravity that science will be subordinated a Big Lie?

Mark Bofill
July 2, 2015 8:50 am

Coming soon to a University near you!:

Grant proposal:
We propose a four year, 6.5 million dollar study to investigate the mechanisms and extent to which the burning of fossil fuels will impact or locally accelerate cosmological viscosity and rip apart the universe…

July 2, 2015 8:53 am

Who knew that the universe had a reservoir tip?

July 2, 2015 9:04 am

I feel a big rip coming on…..wait for it! Oh….crap.

July 2, 2015 9:18 am

It’s hopeless, but not serious.

July 2, 2015 9:23 am

“The only way to do this is to use powerful computers to analyze the complex equations numerically. In this fashion the scientists can make predictions that can be compared with experiment and observation”
Um.. what ‘experiment and observation’ do they have in mind?
Grant App version 2 “We want a million dollars per year, inflation proofed, for 8.5 billion years, to show that our computer models are correct …”

July 2, 2015 9:27 am

The viscuous universe might have to rip, just as long as the BBT doesn’t RIP. (;
The method:
“The only way to do this is to use powerful computers to analyze the complex equations numerically. In this fashion the scientists can make predictions that can be compared with experiment and observation.”
Processing and teasing noise from space or particle collisions until the proper curve is found, and handing out PhDs for all of the computer work is the new science.

July 2, 2015 9:34 am

Here is a basic question. Does the speed of light vary with the density of the universe?

Pat Frank
July 2, 2015 9:37 am

Disconzi, “since it is well-proven experimentally that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.”
Photonic phase travels faster than the speed of light.

July 2, 2015 9:50 am

“… disastrously wrong” in this context stated by the scientist is a bit too colorful, no? In that this has little to do with much presently.

Brian R
July 2, 2015 9:54 am

I’m sure that the EPA will try to blame CO2 somehow.

July 2, 2015 10:06 am

A few decades ago it was the BIG Crunch as gravitational forces overcame the expansion and the Universe contracted to a Singularity. Then another Bounce into a new Universe.
Now its the Big Rip due to Dark energy and Dark Matter that we recently discovered.
And it another few decades it will be the BIG THINGAMAJIG.
I’ve put it on my calendar in the year 2,000,000 AD to check up on those predictions. Then I’ll feel I should start worrying.

Steve P
July 2, 2015 10:08 am

According to the diagram, after Earth explodes, galaxies are destroyed, and atoms are ripped apart, time’s arrow flies on for another c8-9 billion years, which should give them time to refine their work, or at least draw a more accurate diagram.
But at least you are here lines up with now, so they may be on to something.

July 2, 2015 10:37 am

I thought methane was the cause of a big rip.
Oh noes…. another tipping point.
Maybe Dark are just the stretchmarks of the universe. A little vitamin E on them and we’ll be good for another few billion years.
OK, I’m done. 😉

July 2, 2015 11:09 am

David A July 2, 2015 at 4:04 am
Do these folk really know what they are talking about? What exactly is this space that is expanding ever quicker?

Hippy Revelator Zeus Moses Guy fades in from white, to the sound of choral singing, to answer some questions about the Big Bang.
The answer is: Your question is meaningless. 😀 😉

Reply to  Zeke
July 2, 2015 11:17 am

Probably the Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaître got the Cosmic Egg from Ovid.
The Cosmic Egg broke.
So in that case, it all ends with Ovid’s Section IV Book XII–Book XV (end, line 879):
Rome and the Deified Ruler
Stay tuned for that.

Reply to  Zeke
July 2, 2015 12:20 pm

>>Probably the Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaître got
>>the Cosmic Egg from Ovid.
Actually, he probably got it from the Egyptians. The Cosmic Egg was the egg of the Phoenix, which was cognate with the Primaeval Mound. And the Primaeval egg-mound broke open at the birth of the universe to reveal the Sun. And the Phoenix will return every 2,140 years, to engender the birth of the new revitalised Sun.

Reply to  Zeke
July 2, 2015 12:35 pm

What emerged from the Cosmic Egg in the case of the Big Bang Theory, though, is:
Gravity – let’s name it Nephalim, for the Hebrew word “to fall”
Time – go with Chronos
Darkness – how about Apollyon or Abaddon
Chance – O Fortuna, perhaps Eris
And together they created everything.
Nice cyclic Egyptian touch too, I really like the Cosmic Egg with the Bird.

Reply to  Zeke
July 3, 2015 1:05 am

>>Nice cyclic Egyptian touch too,
>>I really like the Cosmic Egg with the Bird.
The story of the rejuvenation of the Phoenix was actually an account of the precession of the equinox. As the Earth precesses on its axis, it causes the zodiac constellations to move through the vernal point, with a new constellation appearing every 2,140 years or so. This was the rejuvenation event of the cosmic Phoenix, when a new Great Month began.
The Phoenix’s last change in the zodiac was in AD 00. So the year now is not 2015 Anno Domini, it is actually 2015 of the Great Month of Pisces – and we stand at the ‘Dawn of the Age of Aquarius’.
5th Dimension, Age of Aquarius. – love the ’60s fashions.


Reply to  Zeke
July 3, 2015 11:47 am

Ralfellis says, “Dawning of the Age of Aquarius”
No, no noo no, not sixties racket! Not hippy chicks!
Anything but that! I give up! You win! (:

Reply to  Zeke
July 3, 2015 12:08 pm

Anyways, ralfellis, the ancient Egyptian constellations from the Dendera figure here:comment image
I try to collect ancient constellations, but tradition has preserved mainly the Greek Ptolemy’s, for the most part.
Just for fun, the Etruscan Liver of Piacenza divides the sky into 16 sections.

Reply to  Zeke
July 5, 2015 2:39 pm

>>the ancient Egyptian constellations from the Dendera figure here.
Indeed. Pisces top right. Aquarius the very top. Followed by Capricorn.
The change I like, is that the northern Europeans did not know what a hippo was, so they called it a bear – Ursa Major.

Reply to  ralfellis
July 5, 2015 6:43 pm

Egads! Look at all that Greek graffiti.
Thanks ralfellis, you just converted me to the late date for the construction of that temple and bas relief. 50 BC under the Ptolemies, plainly. (:

Brad Rich
July 2, 2015 11:55 am

Those quantum physicists are such a riot. I haven’t stopped laughing about the big bang, and now the big rip! I will just break out laughing in public whenever I think of it.

July 2, 2015 12:08 pm

>>It may also shed new light on the basic nature of dark energy/matter.
I prefer the idea that gravity varies with distance. Elegant solutions are normally the best.

george e. smith
Reply to  ralfellis
July 2, 2015 4:47 pm

Well I hope they are not using the words “new light” in relation to anything in the physical universe.
“Light” is defined in “The Science of Color” published by the Committee on Colorimetry of the Optical Society of America; which was one of the original founding bodies of the American Institute of Physics.
And it is defined as “The psycho-physical response of the human eye and brain to the stimulation by electro-magnetic radiation in a narrow one octave bandwidth from about 400 to 800 nm wavelength.”
So “light” is all in your head and can’t be shed on anything.
Same goes for all of the human senses. They may be stimulated by physical processes; but they are not identical to those physical processes.
Which is why a tree can fall in the forest and not make a sound. You need somebody with functioning ears to turn the acoustic compression longitudinal waves in the forest into a functioning ear and brain’s response as a sound.
People without functioning ears, hear NO sound when a tree falls in the forest, even when they are there. So clearly it is the ear which makes the sound, and not the tree.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 2, 2015 5:08 pm

“And it is defined as “The psycho-physical response of the human eye and brain to the stimulation by electro-magnetic radiation in a narrow one octave bandwidth from about 400 to 800 nm wavelength.”” ~george e smith
Any receptor that is finely tuned enough to pick up this spectrum of wavelengths is a genuine antenna. That is not “all in your head,” but is extraordinary biological signal reception.
An antenna must be precisely one half or one wave length to be excited by an em wave.
Half Wave Dipole Antenna
One of the most commonly used antennas is half a wavelength long.
The insects that find each other, even when up wind, are likely doing so by receiving the em emissions from pheromone molecules, rather than by the sense of smell.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
July 3, 2015 3:49 pm

Well Zeke,
“””””…..“Light” is defined in “The Science of Color” published by the Committee on Colorimetry of the Optical Society of America; which was one of the original founding bodies of the American Institute of Physics. …..”””””
Why don’t you go and take that up with them. I simply reported what they say.
Would you like me to go and open that Text book and see if I can scan their exact words, without destroying the binding of the book ??
So what structures in the retina of the human eye are half wave antennas; which I guess you would argue must be from 200 to 400 nm long ?
“””””……An antenna must be precisely one half or one wave length to be excited by an EM wave.
Half Wave Dipole Antenna
One of the most commonly used antennas is half a wavelength long…….”””””
So which of these two conflicting assertions do you wish to keep ??
An antenna MUST be PRECISELY one half or one wavelength ……
or One of the most common used antennas is half a wavelength long ……
Where would I be able to purchase a half wave antenna for the Loran C signals.
The carrier frequency is 100.000 kHz, so I guess a half wave antenna would be about 1500 metres long.
My Loran C antenna is only eight feet long, and it seems to work ok.
And I do have a B Sc. degree in Radio-Physics so I’m at least a little familiar with antenna theory; but thanks for the instruction.
And my FM radio half wave dipole antenna just sits on my wall, and it neither lights up nor makes a sound, even though I know for sure it is detecting FM radio broadcast signals.
I wonder why EM waves of all types are measured in ordinary physical units of energy or power or the densities of those; but for some strange reason, the very same people quantify “light” in units of Photometry, which are completely separate from those used for EM waves.
Here just for reference is the exact wording from the text book.
” Light is the aspect of radiant energy of which a human observer is aware through the visual sensations which arise from the stimulation of the retina of the eye. ”
They then (immediately) go on to add:
” Light as thus defined is a psychophysical concept.
Light is not identified with either radiant energy or visual sensation. ”
Well I won’t retype the entire text book. You can buy your own copy from Amazon if you want to learn more about light or color.
Note the above definition even restricts the observation of “light” to just humans.
We don’t know just what lobsters “see” , and there’s more critters that look like them than look like us.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
July 3, 2015 3:59 pm

Forgot to mention that my Radio-Physics Professor; Dr. Karl Kreielscheimer (long since late) was an acknowledged expert on Antenna Theory.
Didn’t know anything about transistors though.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
July 4, 2015 12:52 pm

I don’t know. Help me out george. Is it a series-tuned circuit? ……”””””
No Zeke, it isn’t a tuned circuit, at all.
An EM wave travelling in free space can be characterized for “signal strength” by the RMS volt per meter strength of the electric field vector (assuming here the simple case of say an on / off Morse code signal). Well it will usually be at levels of microvolts per meter.
The system can be represented as an RF signal generator at some specific frequency and some specific uV / m with the source impedance of that generator being resistive (voltage and current in phase) with a resistance value of about 377 ohms.
That is the characteristic impedance of free space, calculated from:
R = sqrt (mu-nought / epsilon-nought) Where mu nought is the permeability of free space with a value 4pi E-7 Vs / Am (volt seconds per amp meter)
And epsilon nought is the permittivity of free space with a value 8.85418781762 E-12 As / Vm (amp seconds per volt meter).
M\mu nought and epsilon nought have exact values; the error is zero. They are two of the only three physical constants that have exact defined values.
If you multiply mu-nought by epsilon nought and take the square root, then invert it you get the value 2.99792458 E +8 m/s which just happens to be (c) the velocity of EM waves. That is the third physical constant with an exact value.
So we now have space as an EM wave generator with a source resistance of 377 ohms putting out so many microvolts per meter for the electric field vector RMS value.
Now any “tuned” antenna, also has a purely resistive “radiation resistance” that determines what level of EM electric field it will generate from a given RMS AC current in the antenna or verse vicea for a receiving antenna.
A “short” antenna which is any antenna shorter than the resonant half wave for that antenna, now exhibits a capacitive antenna impedance, and that is particularly true for a very short antenna like a Loran C antenna. An 8 ft Loran whip antenna is simply a few (10-30) pF capacitance in series with the free space generator and the 377 ohms space resistance.
And you can calculate the induced current in the short antenna from i = C dV/dt so the only thing a Loran antenna needs besides being as high as you can put it (on your boat) is a whole lot capacitance and hence lots of metal.
Many years ago, I outfitted a well known prominent Tarpon fisherman with a Loran C nav system, so he could record where the tarpon were actually running on the flats down in the keys and other locations. Now you can’t fly cast with any 8ft stick poking up in the sky on your boat.
But this chap had his flats boat built with a “boxing ring” in the middle of it.
An elevated platform maybe five feet square standing on top of a single aluminum metal tube, and all made out of welded aluminum tubing with ropes so he could stand on an elevated platform in the middle of his boat , protected by safety ropes all around, and literally cast in any direction with no impediment, and a good elevated view of the fish in the water. He wanted no part of any 8ft whip antenna.
So his welded aluminum bull pen was mounted on fiberglass reinforcement in the bottom of his boat so it was electrically insulated from the boat and the water.
So it was a perfect mass of metal with a lot of capacitance to free space. So we tucked his Loran antenna coupler, under the elevated deck, where his fly line couldn’t tangle on it, and then electrically connected it to all that fancy tubing.
It made a perfect Loran antenna with no sky blocking at all.
The first week we tried that thing out, my fishing guide was on the radio now and then asking the guide running “Billy’s” boat; “Say how is that fancy phased array working out for Y’alls ??”
Well the “phased array” was nothing but a bunch of aluminum tubing with lots of capacitance to free space. The chap is now at the big fishing hole in the sky, so I can tell the secret of how he kept track of those tarpon runs.
But bottom line Zeke, is that I don’t really care if you want to say that “light ” is an EM wave. Doesn’t bother me a bit.
I don’t even care if people want to wander out onto the railroad track playing with their finger toys, while the train is running them down. To each his own.
We invented language to communicate with each other. Then we all invented our own languages so we couldn’t communicate with each other.
Some people think ebonics is a communication system. Well it depends on who you don’t care to communicate with.
I find it easier to communicate if I use words that have generally agreed on meanings,tht are well thought out.

Reply to  george e. smith
July 4, 2015 2:33 pm

Here just for reference is the exact wording from the text book.
” Light is the aspect of radiant energy of which a human observer is aware through the visual sensations which arise from the stimulation of the retina of the eye. ”
They then (immediately) go on to add:
” Light as thus defined is a psychophysical concept.
Light is not identified with either radiant energy or visual sensation. ”
Note the above definition even restricts the observation of “light” to just humans.

And I don’t care if you think light is defined as a psychophysical concept either.

Reply to  ralfellis
July 3, 2015 6:27 pm

“Where would I be able to purchase a half wave antenna for the Loran C signals. The carrier frequency is 100.000 kHz, so I guess a half wave antenna would be about 1500 metres long.
My Loran C antenna is only eight feet long, and it seems to work ok.”
I don’t know. Help me out george. Is it a series-tuned circuit? Electrical shortening and lengthening of the antenna or waveguide so that it matches the length of the incoming wave is accomplished by placing a coil and an adjustable condenser in series with the antenna. That way the same antenna can tune electrically to fit waves from 4″ to 33′ long.
But most antennas are cut to half or quarter wavelengths – whole, half or quarter. Then you have electrical resonance and the antenna receives.
Light is an em wave.
Now we can look at space, yay.
My intent was to point out how exquisitely tuned biological systems must be to be able to utilize em waves. Now that the technology is understood, it is possible to see that nature already uses antenna technology.
Phil Callahan:

Reply to  Zeke
July 3, 2015 7:26 pm

You know george, Dr. S was talking about using the underground pipe systems of cities as receivers for VLF or ELF, I think.

July 2, 2015 12:17 pm

I find it hard to take any of these theories seriously while time and the passing of time is just a mystery.
How does time relate to all of our perceived cosmological constants? How, if at all, does gravity relate to time and its passing. My fundamental questions are — is the passing of time a constant? If it was not how would that impact our known physics today. Is there any method of measuring it given that our reference frame is always imbedded in time’s passage.
I surmise that we are within time as if stuck in a substance. This time substance has a variable density, which alters the rate at which time passes, from the beginning of the universe (very dense time) changing continuously all the way out to the far reaches of the know universe (very ‘thin’ time). As we are within this time substance we can not ‘see’ (perceive, measure) this effect as we ‘look’ through the substance. Just like looking through an all encompassing glass with variable optical refractive index through it’s thickness, we would find it difficult to perceive it’s true properties, and the real properties of anything outside of it’s domain.
No so much the trickle of time but the treacle of time. 🙂

July 2, 2015 1:12 pm

Well, if our souls are immortal, we should be there to see it. Somebody remind me then to check.

July 2, 2015 1:17 pm

They asked George Burns if he wanted to be buried or cremated. He said, “Surprise me.”
I’m comfortable with being surprised how the earth ends.

Gunga Din
July 2, 2015 1:44 pm

I wouldn’t be too concerned about The Big Bang or The Big Rip. I’d be concerned about all that blue, orange and red stuff that’s out there!

July 2, 2015 2:14 pm

Its becoming apparent that the universe is not sustainable. That can only mean that everything in the universe is not sustainable. That means any attempt to conserve, recycle, reallocate or restrict any resource to make it sustainable is folly. Use it or lose it.

July 2, 2015 2:56 pm

From today the human race got one more imminent thing to be concerned about.
Robots are turning on their masters
In a Volkswagen’s production plant in Germany robot killed a young man. The worker (22) assisted in setting up a stationary robot that handles the auto parts, when the robot suddenly grabbed and shoved him into the press automatically activated to form metal plate into a car body shell.

July 2, 2015 2:56 pm

Dark energy, dark matter, Big Bang. Another area of science that just can’t seem to cope with observations not matching predictions. I have a bit more empathy here than I do for the Greenhouse brigade, simply because it’s much easier to retrofit Einstein with convienient mathematics than it is to challenge his theories. Still, sooner or later someone who does will have to be taken seriously.

July 2, 2015 3:10 pm

On an attempted humorous note.This is all presuming that the Universe exists. Yes we see the the light from the Andromeda galaxy as it was 2.5 million years ago. But it doesn’t mean it is still there. It could have been devoured by star goats ( ref Douglas Adams). Or the stars could have been shut down on environmental grounds as they were using non-renewable fossil hydrogen and were emitting harmful amounts of UV radiation leading to cancers and causing light pollution on planets.

July 2, 2015 3:43 pm

If magnetic attraction (gravity) is responsible for mass , then electric potential creates separation . Without the electrons orbiting the nucleus there would be no periodic table . It truly is a electric universe, welcome to the Primer field

July 2, 2015 3:54 pm

It seems apparent to me that the universe has an unending infinite cycle that had no beginning and has no end. At the ‘big bang’ the universe is incredibly hot and its smallest components are too hot to form structures because the only force at play at these temperatures are repulsive forces. When temperature levels become less than X the smallest components begin to form associations with others and structures begin to form. The interactions that go on from this point will result in temperature variations and the initial ‘lumpiness’ of the universe but can never maintain the high temperature of the big bang. When the universe inevitably cools to absolute zero all its smallest components clump together in the state of singularity. The temperature of a ‘black hole’ is said to be a few billionths of a degree greater than absolute zero. The temperature of the singularity that is the basis for the black hole is absolute zero. In a universe where everything is locked up in a singular state, it will be as though every singularity is linked to all other singularities by infinitely elastic bungee cords as the only force at play will be an attractive force. All these singularities will eventually accelerate towards one another for probably about the same amount of time it took to achieve absolute zero after the big bang; hundreds of billions or even trillions of years. The mergers of singularities will not cause any increase in temperature. These merging, accelerating singularities will reach a point where they are a little less that 300,000 kilometers apart and will be traveling at about 0.99999999 (take it out as far as you like) of the speed of light. The final merger that results will produce the next big bang. If you multiply a trillion by itself a trillion times the result will be less than a trillionth of the infinite number of times our universe has cycled.
Basic statistics tells us that in such a universe the same sperm and egg containing the same DNA will come together under the same circumstances that resulted in each of us. Have you ever had deja vu, premonitions, dreams that come true, so called sixth sense experiences? When your DNA builds you out it installs memories from previous existences in your brain. You access these memories when you have a sixth sense experience. If you are placed under hypnosis, regressed and asked what you are doing before your current life you will describe prior lives. When Nostradamus, in a dreamlike or trancelike state told of modern vehicles, weapons and countries he could not intellectually relate to at the time he was living, he was recalling events from a life lived in a prior iteration of the universe.
Bottom line? You can’t die, reincarnation is inevitable, no one goes to heaven or hell, and the peaceful non-existence of nirvana is a pipe dream.
For socially obvious reasons I prefer anonymity as far as my beliefs are concerned..

Reply to  actuator
July 3, 2015 2:03 pm

While I might quibble about a few details (particularly, the DNA/memory business) I think your bottom line is correct. As John Lennon put it: “You don’t take nothin’ with you but your soul.” As I put it: every sapient IS a universe.

Louis Hunt
July 2, 2015 4:06 pm

To avoid the Big Rip, when God says, “pull my finger,” don’t do it.

July 2, 2015 4:15 pm

Aren’t we going through the Big Rip Off as we speak?

John Coleman
July 2, 2015 4:57 pm

WUWT interesting articles and absolutely priceless, amazing, fascinating, well research and totally educational comments. I hurry through the articles to get to the good stuff. LOL

old construction worker
July 2, 2015 6:28 pm

“Nothing is faster than light”. Not true with the big bag theory. “inflation” was / is faster than light. Or, “Inflation” didn’t happen, if so, back to the drawing board.

William Astley
July 2, 2015 7:03 pm

The quality and the quantity of astronomical multi spectrum observations has increased exponentially with time. More data and higher quality data has resulted in more anomalies and paradoxes, not less.
Senior professional astronomer Halton Arp is on the correct track in his book ‘Seeing Red, Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science’ which lists roughly a hundred different astronomical observations (shown from astronomical plates) that support the assertion that active galaxies eject lineless, naked quasars, which then expand/develop to form galaxies. This process is how a steady state universe continues to produce what we observe in our sky.
There are trains of ejected quasars in both direction from old active galaxies which following the line/train of ejected objects, in time turn into small galaxies and then to large galaxies. Arp compares clusters which are strings of galaxies such as the Virgo cluster, the Fornax Cluster, and the Coma Cluster and finds the same spatial structure of an initial line of baby naked quasars that change with time to small galaxies and then into larger galaxies which in time also ejected baby quasars.
Connected with the formation of the quasars, the powering of quasars, the evolution of quasars and galaxies, the initiation/turning off of star bursts, and the production of non velocity red shift is immense electrical imbalance. This explains why there is a steady reduction in object redshift along the line of quasars and then galaxies that stretch from the initial (parent) Seyfert 1 galaxy.
The following are new paradoxes and anomalies which disappear if quasars are local rather high redshift objects and if many high red shift galaxies are also local.

“Naked active galactic nuclei”, by M. Hawkins
In this paper we report the discovery of a new class of active galactic nucleus in which although the nucleus is viewed directly, no broad emission lines are present. The results are based on a survey for AGN in which a sample of about 800 quasars and emission line galaxies were monitored yearly for 25 years. Among the emission line galaxies was the expected population of Seyfert 2 galaxies with only narrow forbidden lines in emission, and no broad lines. … …It is argued that these objects can only be Seyfert 1 galaxies in which the nucleus is viewed directly, but in which broad emission lines are completely absent.
Such ‘naked’ AGN appear to be quite common, comprising roughly 10% of the sample of the emission line galaxies observed… …An interesting question which arises concerns the possibility that naked nuclei may be found among more luminous AGN in the quasar regime. This almost inevitably means that candidate objects will be at higher redshift, and much more difficult to identify without the help of a system of strong narrow forbidden lines. There is much anecdotal evidence from surveys based on UVX selection for objects with featureless spectra for which there is no plausible classification. Such objects are typically ignored for lack of observational evidence as to their nature. With information on variability, one can say a lot more.

Astronomy: Trouble at first light
But rather than helping to decipher the epoch of cosmic first light, such observations have in fact created another puzzle. Simply stated, the dawn of galaxies seems to be too brilliant: the excess signal outshines the cumulative emission from all galaxies between Earth and the extremely distant first stars. If primordial sources are to account for all of this infrared radiation, current models of star formation in the young Universe look distinctly shaky.
Too many massive stars ending their brief lives in a giant thermonuclear explosion would, for instance, eject large amounts of heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen into space, polluting the cosmos very early on and altering forever the composition of the raw material
available for second-generation stars. But if the first-generation stars were to collapse to massive black holes instead, gas accretion onto such black holes would produce large amounts of X-rays. Both variants seem to be in conflict with current observations.

Where are the sources of the near infrared background?
Recent measurements of the Near Infrared Background
(NIRB) (see Hauser & Dwek 2001 for a review) have shown an intensity excess with respect to observed light from galaxies in deep field surveys (Madau & Pozzetti 2000; Totani et al. 2001). The discrepancy is maximal at 1.4 μm, corresponding to 17 − 48 nW m−2 sr−1 (about 2-5 times the known galaxy contribution)(Matsumoto et al. 2005); significant discrepancies are found also at longer wavelengths.
The large uncertainty on the amplitude of the excess is due to the subtraction of the zodiacal light (i.e. sunlight scattered by the interplanetary dust) contribution. Two different models for the zodiacal light have been so far proposed, which predict a higher (Wright 1998), or a lower (Kelsall et al. 1998) contribution of this component to the NIRB. It has to be noted, though, that the excess cannot be completely explained by a combination of galaxy and zodiacal light alone, unless current zodiacal light models are seriously incorrect.

The following is a paper that notes there are insufficient sources of ionizing UV radiation to explain the amount ionized gas in intergalactic space in the local universe.
he primary source of intergalactic ionizing radiation are quasars. If it is fact that quasars do not exhibit time dilation then logically there is a paradox as the quasar redshift indicates the quasars are distant objects while the lack of time dilation indicates the quasar is in the local universe. If there were more quasars in the local universe there would be no photon underproduction crisis.

Discovery that quasars don’t show time dilation mystifies astronomers
The phenomenon of time dilation is a strange yet experimentally confirmed effect of relativity theory. One of its implications is that events occurring in distant parts of the universe should appear to occur more slowly than events located closer to us. For example, when observing supernovae, scientists have found that distant explosions seem to fade more slowly than the quickly-fading nearby supernovae.

This paper proposes a solution to the photon underproduction crisis is that dark matter might be creating UV radiation in the local universe, however if that were true earth experiments would have detected dark matter.

We examine the statistics of the low-redshift Lyman-alpha forest from smoothed particle hydrodynamic simulations in light of recent improvements in the estimated evolution of the cosmic ultraviolet back-ground (UVB) and recent observations from the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS). We find that the value of the metagalactic photoionization rate (HI) required by our simulations to match the observed properties of the low-redshift Lyman-alpha- forest is a factor of 5 larger than the value predicted by state-of-the art models for the evolution of this quantity. This mismatch in HI results in the mean ux decrement of the Lyman-alpha forest being underpredicted by at least a factor of 2 (a 10 sigma discrepancy with observations) and a column density distribution of Lyman- alpha forest absorbers systematically and significantly elevated compared to observations over nearly two decades in column density. We examine potential resolutions to this mismatch and that either conventional sources of ionizing photons (galaxies and quasars) must be significantly elevated relative to current observational estimates or our theoretical understanding of the low-redshift universe is in need of substantial revision

The universe is eternal rather than started 13.7 billion years ago from a big bang which explains what happened from eternity to 13.7 billion years ago. Same as we observe now.

Reply to  William Astley
July 3, 2015 6:33 am

I agree with Halton Arp.
But who am I to argue with the establishment of textbook gadget technicians?
Big Bang fanatics are even more evil than global warming alarmists (because there is a tacit but powerful agenda of saving creationist beliefs under the veneering of hairy formulas, as there are unmistakable religious overtones in the green agenda). Dr. Arp himself is being relentlessly ostracized and persecuted.
Which is a clear indication of his explanation of red shift being correct.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 3, 2015 11:35 am

“Big Bang fanatics are even more evil than global warming alarmists (because there is a tacit but powerful agenda of saving creationist beliefs under the veneering of hairy formulas” ~Feht
If the
>Big Bang,
>the Nebular Hypothesis of Planetary Formation,
>On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, and
>the Lyellian geological uniformitarianism
are designed to save Creationist beliefs, then how do the atheists/positivists say the Earth and mankind came into existence in its present state?
Not only do we recognize the purpose and design and fine structure of the creation, but we are also catastrophists, acknowledging that events on this earth have resurfaced it, possibly several times by sudden and extraordinary means. We also acknowledge that there are spiritual laws which govern the order of the universe. For example, evil bears within itself torments and sorrows, even if consequences appear to be delayed in this age. “Do not be deceived. What ever a man sows, that he shall reap.” That is the law, and it is not possible in an accidental universe. None of these cohere with BBT, Nebular theory, favored races, or Lyellian uniformatarianism.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 3, 2015 1:21 pm

Oink, oink.
What else can I say on the same intellectual level?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 3, 2015 2:17 pm

I’m still an adherent of “God said it and BANG!, it happened.”

Lars P.
Reply to  William Astley
July 15, 2015 7:36 am

Thanks William! Very enlightening

July 2, 2015 7:14 pm

Philosophically and artistically a Big Rip seems more appealing and symmetrical than a Big Chill.
All matter and energy begin as one condensed unity from almost no volume. All matter and energy end as totally disrupted and dispersed components in an endless volume. No doubt, in future, to be recycled.
I like it.

F. Ross
July 2, 2015 9:16 pm

All this conjecture sounds interesting but there have been so many that it becomes just another puff piece for idle cosmologists.

Skeptic Sceptic
July 3, 2015 3:37 am

The IPCC, soon to be renamed IPAC (Intergovernmental Panel on Astronomical Change), is shifting focus on those risks that merit the full scrutiny of the scientific community. No longer are the earthbound dangers associated with global warming seen to be the most threatening risks. Now, there appears to be a more calamitous fate in store for the earth and the cosmos: the “Big Rip”. (An unfortunate name, not to be interpreted as “a voluminous, flatulent release”).
Cosmological viscosity, a form of bulk viscosity, needs to be studied in more detail, especially for putative positive feedbacks by molecules previously demonstrated to have such effects in other fields of study. It is speculated that a certain carbon dioxide variant, called “dark” carbon dioxide, is one such molecule, and could exhibit properties acting as a positive feedback on a fluid’s propensity to expand. An effect not unsuitably labeled; the “Dark Green House” effect.
A proposed re-formulation of the equations comprising the CMIP5 ensemble of climate models, to incorporate relativistic fluid dynamics in a way that reduces the mathematical expressions to the first derivative of the dark matter forcings, may serve as a starting point to properly model this effect.
It is expected that one modeled inference from the discovery of the universe’s run-away expansion, is an approaching “tipping point”, beyond which, the earth would become irrecoverably changed. A consequence being that our grand children may not know what snow is, as well as other atomic matter.
Needless to say, the “Big Rip”, promulgated by such forces as “phantom” dark energy, with the modeled positive feedbacks, may bring about the demise of fragile species such as the polar bear, penguin and various amphibia, and indeed, in all likelihood, would perpetrate a grand mass extirpation of all life on earth.
It is worse than we thought.

July 3, 2015 6:59 am

Their numerous fantasy models look more and more like a 4-dimensional condom.
It will certainly rip, and a new model will be conceived.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 3, 2015 2:16 pm

Clever word play!

July 3, 2015 1:17 pm

Well, thank goodness they’ve finally sorted all that out.
Good to know.

July 5, 2015 1:52 pm

Lol it will make a wonderful nova episode… just think of all the cg they can incorporate. Its hard to take serious a theory that is built on another flawed theory.

July 5, 2015 6:02 pm

The Big Bang theory defies the laws of known physics anyway. They whole thing is preposterous.
According to them. If you get the mass of a large Sun and collapse it in on itself…. It forms a “Black Hole”…. Yet if you get the combined mass of the entire universe…. It explodes.

July 5, 2015 8:03 pm

Once each particle is forever separated from communicating with every other it will vanish from our universe and appear in the one above us via hawking radiation… that is, at least, if our universe is inside a black hole. As our hologram of a universe appears to stretch, the container in which we reside shrinks!
…I may have had enough to drink now.