The Big Bang- It time to settle this once and for all!!!

why06 · Apr 21, 2006

What kind of "objects" are you talking about...I would not dare to touch into demensions beyond our own....there maybe dimensions made of something other than space and time <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

harmonicaman · Apr 21, 2006

Rickstine - Yes; the current models demonstrate that there must have been a slightly larger amount of normal matter in the early universe and this left over normal matter is what exists in the universe today. This matter is static; it does not change! Only space and time changes around the matter; and this conflict between the constantly changing space and time and the static matter manifests itself as gravity. ...that's the classical and most widely accepted view of the problem, but there are other explanations which seem to have varying degrees of credibility.

yevaud · Apr 21, 2006

That's true about the varying theories on the predominance of matter versus anti-matter present in today's universe. To simplify matters, or perhaps complicating matters (depending) though, a recent "discovery" (so to speak) has shown that matter and anti-matter actually have different behavior (other than the obvious, that is) when a particle is replaced by it's anti-particle, and the three directions in space are reversed. It was experimentally shown at (IIRC) Fermilab that CP (Charge-Parity) violations are different for each form of matter / anti-matter, which may well explain how matter came to be dominant. Just FYI. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 21, 2006

What kind of "objects" are you talking about...I would not dare to touch into demensions beyond our own....there maybe dimensions made of something other than space and time Either black holes or Gravastar-like objects that have a mass exceeding 10 billion times the largest known galaxy. The Schwarzschild radius of one of these obects would be a significant fraction of the currently known universe's diameter.

Saiph · Apr 21, 2006

First, a warning, this post became rather long, but hopefully I broke it into small enough coherent sections as not to be to imposing: where does the space-time expand from? It expands everywhere. Each small section of space is expanding. Once again the balloon analogy is instructive. In the balloon analogy, the surface of the balloon is 3-D space in the real world. The perpendicular line (along the radial lines of the balloon) is time. When a balloon is inflated, the surface stretches, and each point on the center grows more distant from each other point. The closer the points were in the begining, the smaller the change. Lets say that for each inch of seperation, that over each second, that inch grows by an inch (okay...now that I've typed inch everal times it's beginning to seem like a strange word). So our rate of expansion is 1 inch, per second, per inch, just to make the math easier. Lets take a look at two dots, one at an initial seperation of 1 inch (dot A), and the other at 2 inches (dot B), prior to our expansion. We begin to inflate the balloon now: After the first second, dot A is now 2 inches away from our reference point as the initial inch grows by one inch in that second. Now, if we were to look at our reference point (lets label it dot 0) as any other dot, and switch our reference to dot A we'd see the exact same thing. Dot 0 was 1 inch away, and one second later its now 2 inches away. This satisfies one of the standard principles of cosmology: That anywhere you go in the universe, you'll see the same general behavior. This is an outgrowth of the idea that earth isn't a special location (and relativity theory), so what we see from here, we'd see the same general stuff from over in andromeda, or a more distant galaxy. Now for dot B: It was 2 inches away, and each of those inches expands by 1 inch in the second of time we're looking at. That means dot B has now mov <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

why06 · Apr 21, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />This matter is static; it does not change! Only space and time changes around the matter <hr /></blockquote> Yes, this maybe true, but how do you account for heat which is contained by matter surely the space in between is not say a stove and your hand is not vibrating. If that was the case matter would never actually touch, space-time would just shrinking shrink between them. -What do you decribe as static. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

nova_explored · Apr 21, 2006

i'm wondering why those that find faults with BB model aren't posting? BB and expansion isn't fool proof by any means. i'd be careful or you'll unleash the predecessors against the theory. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 21, 2006

The Big Bang is NOT 'just a theory'. It's the working, highly substantiated model of our universe in astrophysics. The Big Bang is NOT just a 'working, highly substantiated model of our universe in astrophysics'. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

kmarinas86 · Apr 21, 2006

The increasing red shift associated with greater distances and the cosmic background radiation are both excellent means by which this expansion can be observed and confirmed. That which is confirmed could, in some circumstances, be debunked in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum Simulacrum From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Simulacrum (plural: simulacra), from the Latin simulare, "to make like, to put on an appearance of", originally meaning a material object representing something (such as a cult image representing a deity, or a painted still-life of a bowl of fruit). By the 1800s it developed a sense of a "mere" image, an empty form devoid of spirit, and descended to connote a specious or fallow representation. In the book Simulacra and Simulation (1981/1995), the French social theorist Jean Baudrillard gave the term a specific meaning in the context of semiotics, extended from its common one: a copy of a copy which has been so dissipated in its relation to the original that it can no longer be said to be a copy. The simulacrum, therefore, stands on its own as a copy without a model. The original context is assumed by what we know at the time (that was ancient flat earther's did, that's what phrenologists did). But the model itself, can hardly interact with us (if at all), nor could we easily interact with the model. Hence, much of the knowledge coming from soft research is "specious" or "fallow".

Saiph · Apr 21, 2006

kmar does have a point. The earth is flat, to one part in a hundred million IIRC. So saying it's flat means you're wrong...but not that wrong. So our current observations that lead us to an expanding universe model could, after further refinement, lead to something else similar, or different. Halton Arp for instance, is catalogueing a number of objects with "anamolous redshifts", objects that have highly dissimilar redshifts, but other indications that they're related or interacting, implying a proximity in space. I.e. a small number of cases that contest the concept of "cosmological redshift" that underlies the expansion explaination of the hubble distance relationship. Whether these really indicate "intrinsic redshift mechanisms" or are just anamolous systems that eject material at incredibly high speeds, are not actually related or something else entirely, is up for debate (and is debated). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

harmonicaman · Apr 22, 2006

Why06 - I stated: "This matter is static; it does not change! Only space and time changes around the matter." And you asked: "What do you describe as static?" My statement was an allusion to The Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. Matter and energy can be interconverted within space and time, but their basic substance remains a constant in the universe -- matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Note that the matter and energy which we are made of is mostly empty space, and this empty space permits matter and energy interactions to occur within the expansion of time. The only true "Solid" matter in the universe is within a Black Hole; where so much matter is compacted together that time and space is completely squeezed out and no interactions can occur.

kyle_baron · Apr 22, 2006

Note that the matter and energy which we are made of is mostly empty space, and this empty space permits matter and energy interactions to occur within the expansion of time. The only true "Solid" matter in the universe is within a Black Hole; where so much matter is compacted together that time and space is completely squeezed out and no interactions can occur. I like both of your statements. Very profound. Well done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bonzelite · Apr 23, 2006

Clearly, Americans need a better education in the sciences. clearly you have no idea how the universe got here or began, as you believe in the big bang theory <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

newtonian · Apr 23, 2006

why06 - You have many good questions. You asked: Where does spacetime expand from? Spacetime expands from the beginning - note Genesis 1:1. Our universe is not eternal in the past. My definition of time is: the medium through which cause and effect flow. Note that the creation of our universe was by cause and effect - therefore primordial time had to exist before our universe specific spacetime was created. Cause and effect cannot proceed without time. Now the question also remains: where does 3-d (not 4-d with time as the 4th dimension) expand from? Some say a singularity. I consider one possibility involved the interaction of pre-existing 'branes' with dimensions. If the interaction involved 2-d contact, then the contact point would indeed resemble a singularity. The evidence points to this rather than a contact point as a straight or curved 2-d line - but we are still learning, of course. You asked: where is all this matter coming from? The early universe, extrapolating back from current temperature and density, was too hot at the beginning to allow matter to exist. Energy preceded matter and was converted to matter by the fine tuned ratio e=mc^2. Isaiah 40:26 links the existence of stars to plural forms of our Creator's power and energy. We know some of these forms of energy and forces - for example the 4 fine-tuned forces of physics: gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear. We suspect other forms of energy - especially dark energy aka vacuum energy aka cosmological constant. This all proceeded in harmony with the law of conservation of matter and energy, btw. You asked: Why has it not stopped expanding? Because it was fine tuned to just barely expand eternally, very close to omega=1 which is the critical density between eternal expansion and eventual collapse. The expansion rate is extremely fin

llivinglarge · Apr 24, 2006

The concept of something existing before the BB is hard to grasp.

why06 · Apr 24, 2006

Who knows maybe the stars arre just naturally red... there arre a thousand reasons other than an expanding universe for the low frequencies of light! I'm not excluding this idea, but it needs a little fine tuning. How do you know the actual frequency of light can be distorted simply by an objects speed. If Einstein's true then light would move the same speed no matter what makning it impossible for red-shift to occur. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

bonzelite · Apr 24, 2006

^^^excellent point. as well, the nature of light is highly misunderstood.

why06 · Apr 24, 2006

Very good post. And I agree...I to believe their is a center of this universe back in time. Geometrically, if you play connect-the-dots with all the stars in this system you will get some funky three dimensionaly object. Now judge their relative rates of expansion. Reverse the numbers with account for rate of deceleration and mathematically you should be able to find a center among these points. I believe it is at this geometric point is the Chronological center. If this universe did inflate then somebody had to be blowing in space time. If anybody <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

thepiper · Apr 24, 2006

Don't you mean Hubble-Humason? After all, they were co-discoverers of the redshift/distance ratio. However, as Milton Humason stated in a paper published in 1931: "It is not at all certain that the large redshifts observed in the spectra are to be interpreted as a Doppler effect but, for convenience, they are interpreted in terms of velocity and referred to as apparent velocities." (“Velocity-Distance Relation Among Extra-Gallactic Nebulae,” 1931, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 74.) Later, when it was clear that Humason would not change this view, his name was dropped from the credits and that is why the public only knows it as “Hubble’s Law.”

robnissen · Apr 24, 2006

"the steady degeneration of this fora into a flurry of unscientific, unlearned, worthless posts by persons whose scientific training is not great." It not that their "scientific training is not great," its that its NONEXISTENT!! I propose that "Space Science and Astronomy" be broken into two categories. "Space Science and Astronomy" and "Space Fantasy and Delusion." For all those with NO scientific training, please post your theories in Space Fantasy and Delusion. Now, I am not elitest, for those with no training and want to ask questions of those with training, please feel free to continue to post here. But for those who think, that because Einstein had bowel movements, and they also have bowel movements, they are as qualified as Einstein to speculate about the universe, please post in "Space Fantasy and Delusion."

newtonian · Apr 24, 2006

llivinglarge - Why is that hard to grasp? I would think that believing there was nothing before the BB would be hard to grasp! Especially in view of the law of conservation of matter and energy.

Saiph · Apr 25, 2006

we know that it's not just the stars being naturally red, but that the light is shifted by the postion of the emissioin/absorption lines in the spectrum. Lets take hydrogen, hydrogen emits/absorbs a specific set of colors (called emission or absorption lines). Some of these lines are red, some blue, but always a very speicific, well defined color. This set of lines is completely unique to hydrogen, you can tell hydrogen from any other atom or ionization (atoms with less electrons than required to be neutral). So, when we see the spectral fingerprint of hydrogen, we know what's making the lines. this is work that is ratified, and tested, and perfected to a very high degree of accuracy in labs here, where we know exactly what we're looking at, so this identification is very, very good, and one of the most accurate measurements made by science. So accurate that it's a fundamental basis for atomic clocks. Now, to tell redshifting you identify as many elements as you can, by pattern recognition only, then you determine what wavelengths those patterns are at. Say you identify the dozen or so lines characteristic for a calcium ion, you measure them all, and compare them to the results given from the lab, and find each single line is redder by 10 angstroms wavelength than given in the lab. You then check to make sure the test spectrum, done of a gas by the telescope is accurate (and that it isn't off by 10 angstroms, if it is, you've made a mistake) One way to get such a systematic shift, other than an error by the device, which you check for, is doppler shift, which indicates the object is moving relative to the observer. This doppler shift has nothing to do with the speed of light changing, in fact, it's so accurate a measurement because the speed of light doesn't change. This shift is completely different than the overall color of the object, which is discerned by looking at all wavelengths of light, and identifying th <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

why06 · Apr 25, 2006

stevehw33- Shut Up!, If you had known anything at all you would have explained the phenomenon instead of writing a dozen insults. Obviously you don't know what what our talking about. Your sound like some drunk parachete constantly repeating whatever your scientist tell you is true... never thinking that they might be wrong. Have you never questioned the validity of their statements. SCIENCE HAS BEEN WRONG BEFORE! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

kmarinas86 · Apr 25, 2006

we know that it's not just the stars being naturally red, but that the light is shifted by the postion of the emissioin/absorption lines in the spectrum. Lets take hydrogen, hydrogen emits/absorbs a specific set of colors (called emission or absorption lines). Some of these lines are red, some blue, but always a very speicific, well defined color. This set of lines is completely unique to hydrogen, you can tell hydrogen from any other atom or ionization (atoms with less electrons than required to be neutral). So, when we see the spectral fingerprint of hydrogen, we know what's making the lines. this is work that is ratified, and tested, and perfected to a very high degree of accuracy in labs here, where we know exactly what we're looking at, so this identification is very, very good, and one of the most accurate measurements made by science. So accurate that it's a fundamental basis for atomic clocks. Now, to tell redshifting you identify as many elements as you can, by pattern recognition only, then you determine what wavelengths those patterns are at. Say you identify the dozen or so lines characteristic for a calcium ion, you measure them all, and compare them to the results given from the lab, and find each single line is redder by 10 angstroms wavelength than given in the lab. You then check to make sure the test spectrum, done of a gas by the telescope is accurate (and that it isn't off by 10 angstroms, if it is, you've made a mistake) One way to get such a systematic shift, other than an error by the device, which you check for, is doppler shift, which indicates the object is moving relative to the observer. This doppler shift has nothing to do with the speed of light changing, in fact, it's so accurate a measurement because the speed of light doesn't change. This shift is completely different than the overall color of the object, which is discerned by looking at all wavelengths of light, an

kmarinas86 · Apr 25, 2006

Incredible lack of knowledge. the whole spectra of these stars is shifted to the red, that's why it's called the red shift. this is not seen in stars nearby us, in our galaxy, or in nearby galaxies for that matter. It's only seen in stars or galaxies travelling very much faster, AWAY from us. Right again, Saiph.

The Big Bang- It time to settle this once and for all!!!

why06

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

yevaud

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Saiph

Guest

why06

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Saiph

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

newtonian

Guest

llivinglarge

Guest

why06

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

why06

Guest

thepiper

Guest

robnissen

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

why06

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page