Stars having certain characteristics should emit the same amount of energy
This conclusion come from the physics of solar
Thus the brightness of these stars is an indication of their distance from the earth
Remember that Mr krauss said also that in the study of universe an accuracy 1 to 10, is a good result

That with the triangle was really cool. It makes sense. The universe is flat.

yes, i was lazy. ...but actually you could end many threads here with a link to wikipedia.

" The grand design " a new book by Stephen Hawking

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,"

Excuse me for bumping up this old thread, but I recently rewatched it again.

So, if space extends by the vacuum's "dark energy", everything is pushed away from everything else without the universe itself really expanding. A different way to visualise is that everything is simply shrinking. Everything but light. As pointed out by Dr. Lawrence Krauss, in 1 gazillion years we do not see any matter anymore outside our own starsystem. The CBR is gone outside our reach of vision: the infrared light waves are longer than the size of our universe, which has essentially shrinked in relation to light which has a statically defined wavesize.

So, as we shift into indefinite insignificance where in 1000 gazillion years we can't even see our own starsystem anymore, is it a plausible thought that in a different order of magnitude new matter is coming in? Is the universe really just an endless pool of sinking sand where matter is created not at a single point like the big bang, but everywhere in the universe's nothingness (the universe's "constant level of energy" type of nothing) on top of the pool, forging matter by ripples through this energy level, which then slowly decreases in size by the sinking-sand-space into nothing again?


EDIT:
Rereading this I think I am throwing quite some confusing terms in my explanation. I made a little graph explaining hopefully more clear what I mean:



This is a depiction of a linear metric expansion of the universe. Matter is created where time is 0%, but not per sé at 0% distance. It can boil up anywhere over the x-axis. As time progresses to 100% (whether that takes infinitely long or not) the universe's metrics expands. Green area is where light can still reach us as the metric expansion didn't exceed lightspeed, red area is where metric expansion exceeded lightspeed and light can not reach us anymore. Light travels under 45 degrees (see yellow line). All matter created at the beginning of time (time=0%) and the end of the universe (distance=99%) is outside the visible universe (which is marked by the blue CBR line), but will reach us at one point in time: time=99%. It could take nearly infinitely long though.

The blue line is not affected by the white line. The blue line is our observation of the CBR. The further up in time, the longer the path to travel due to the expanded metrics. But light is not affected by the expansion. In relation to the lightwaves, we shrink, thus for us the lightwaves appear bigger resulting in a redshift. The CBR is the furthest distance of what we can see from matter created at the same timeframe as us.

Even now, while we are halfway up this graph (the sinking-sand metaphorically), new matter is boiling up at time=0%. We just can't measure it as the lightwaves do not reach us at all, it exists in an entirely different timeframe. If there would be a way to shift through the universe's metric scale, you'd shift in phase of a different ordering of matter, made up by quantum fluctuations before or after our own creation.

In the end, at time=100% we must be somehow completely be recycled into the constant energy level of the universe again to keep the balance.

What do you professional physicists and astronomers think of this perception?

Regards,
Joozey

From what I remember, according to the WMAP satellite images (microwave radiation, etc) the universe is ever expanding, growing colder and no new matter is being created (in our universe). Thus, our universe is doomed to die a cold death (and not gazillions of years, but in trillions ). However, there is the possibility of untold numbers of other universes. Several theories speak of a "multiverse." Some believe that these "verses" come into existence all the time ... like bubbles in a boiling pot of water.

I think you misunderstood me. According to kepler's observations the universe is not just simply expanding, it does so in an accelerating way. It is like everything is pushed away from eachother.

As a result, if you would move outside of the universe, you would not see a growing universe. Instead you'd see a universe that remains its size, but all matter within is shrinking in size. All lightwave sizes however remain the same.

Back in the universe again, we actually don't notice ourself shrinking, but rather see everything moving away, plus the lightwaves growing. This clarifies why far away objects appear redshifted. The light that was emitted by a far away object reaches us so much time later that we have shrunken noticeably in size in the meantime. The lightwaves are thus bigger for us as it was back when the object emitted the light, meaning we see it more red.

This is depicted by the yellow line, which moves in time at the speed of light (45 degrees) towards us from time=0% to time=50%. it starts at metric scale of 0%, but reaches us halfway up the metric scale at 50%. The scale of space expanded. Green to red area is the speed of expansion, crossing the white line expands faster than light. And relatively seen we shrink. The light (yellow line) maintained its size though.

Now supposing we are now at 50% on the metric scale (this is just a made-up definition, not a very scientific theory), at 0% new matter still boiles in. We just can't see it as it is out of our scope. No matter where and how you draw light lines (under 45 degrees) at scale=0%, it will never reach a different timeframe. But it would make sense for the universe not having a begin and end, and rather be a continuous cycle. Such a universe would have a total energy of 0. So I thought of this solution.

Sorry for correcting old stuff.

no, the Kasimir effect is an evidence for quantum fluctuations and the zero point energy of vacuum. It is not yet clear if dark energy and the zero point energy are the same thing.
See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0406504.


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=number+of+people+who+ever+lived

yes and no
Same as mr Krauss himself says in the movie , should the zero point energy of vacuum and the dark energy be the same stuff then the dark energy should tear the universe apart

In other words the dark energy is not so strong as the theoratical calculus assume

Having said that, it is evident that all begins from the Heisenberg's principle which lead to a non intuitive and astonishing result
Vacuum does not exist

The first experimental evidence has been the kasimirìs effect

The acceleration of the universe and the Heisenberg's principle are therefore related stuff even though some parameters must be still tuned

if a big bang can form from nothing whats to say a God couldnt from from nothing? its kinda weird to me how people say stuff like before the big bang "There was nothing. Just nothing" but when a christian applies that same type of reasoning to the theory that there is a god, they're "not being logical" or "they can back prove their claims". many people have skewed veiws of what they think heaven is. they think heaven is a magical place in the clouds somewhere in the stratosphere, and we all float up there with wings on our back the second we die.I belive that the universe is infite in space and theres possiblity for anything to exist out there.and i still dont get how the big bang could occur if absolutely nothing existed before it to trigger its explosion.and if there were anything to trigger it, would that mean it proves it self to be worng? i think the big bang theory is just a way to place an orign of time and space and the creation of the universes.its like the chicken or the egg. you say the chicken came first so you can get on with life .