<p> As many of you know, I am very new to this site. I also had the privilege of briefly bringing portions of this up in a previous topic with MeteorWayne in the Background noise? discussion thread. But I figured it belonged in it's own thread. </p><p>In the previous discussion I also indicated that I have read extensive articles, books, and seen videos on the Big Bang subject. Though there are many theories, I would like to extend my hand to the astronomers & astrophysists out there, and see what feedback I get. *Prepares to duck a few knives & text books* Okay, here it goes.... I'd like to first post this article that I went back and read *As per part of MeteorWayne's suggestion*.I've also re-reviewed some others as well.</p><p> </p><font size="1" class="f" color="#222222"><p><strong>Big Bang Theory - The Premise</strong><br />The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. <br /><br />According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. <br /><br />After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory. </p><p><strong>Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions</strong><br />There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. <br /><br />Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.<sup>1, 2</sup> According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."<sup>3</sup> The singularity didn't appear <em>in</em> space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, <em>nothing</em> existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. </p><p><strong>Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory</strong><br />What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory? </p><ul><li>First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. </li><li>Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. </li><li>Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery. </li><li>Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. </li></ul></font><p><font size="1" class="f" color="#222222"><strong>Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?</strong><br />Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."<sup>4</sup> <br /><br />In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.<sup>5</sup> Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.<sup>6</sup> Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. </font></p><p><font size="1">Article located at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/</font> </p><p> </p><p>My Theory: This theory kind of resolves three things, the "Background noise" detected recently; and my version of the Big Bang Theory, and the distribution of Darl energy/matter "IF" it exists. </p><p>1st dispute: I'm not an expert by any means; however I would have to dispute the first misconception about the Big Bang not being an explosion. This theory explains why I believe the Big Bang was indeed an explosion process.</p><p>For a second take what we know here on Earth about atomic explosions and apply it to the scale of the big bang. Did anyone ever notice when an atomic bomb goes off, it not only vaporizes everything in it's path; but he blast also also travels in two directions… out as well as inward again. If you put into persepective the size of the explosion the Big Bang would have had to be "IF" there was one, can there be something other then simple vaporization at it's origin point? I mean, could this "boom" in the radio waves be caused from the results of an explosion of this magnitude? It would be kind of a concentration of radio frequency at the origion point would it not? After retreating, Atomic explosions here on Earth travel upward and in some cases completly out of the atmosphere such as Russia's bus size bomb. However if a tremedously larger version is set off in space; were does it go besides out... how does an explosion like that react in space? If you think of Atomic explosions, most would think the force would just go in one direction until it's driving energy disapates, however as I explained it doesn't. Mushroom clouds are a visible indication to us of the direction of the retreated force, deep in space could the force for whatever reason have retreated back to one singular location in space... the origion point. </p><p>MeteorWayne's response to this:</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> </p><p>Lots to address here. First, the Big Bang, as theorized, is not an explosion "in" space, rather is an expansion of space itself. So it is not comparable to an atomic blast.</p><p>As far as an atomic blast on the ground, the air rushing in after the initial blast is caused by the superheated air at the blast point rising rapidly,leaving low pressure at the ground. The surrounding air rushes in to fill that. That rising superheated air causes the mushroom cloud would only occur within the atmosphere.</p><p>In space, such an explosion (unless directed by the structure of the bomb itself, which I think would be very limited) will expand as a sphere in all directions until acted on by an outside force, such as the gravitation of a nearby objects, outflow from a nearby star, etc.</p><div class="Discussion_UserSignature"><p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> <font color="#000000"></DIV></font></font></p><p> </p><p>Of course I replied with this which answers why any dark energy matter would also be distrubed throughout space as well:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Your absolutely right about the air pressure MeteorWayne; as well the "expansion" of space. I might have worded that wrong. As I said, I am no expert; but always had some theories I was somewhat reluctant to share. You know the kind that would put your name at the top of a witch hunt list, lol.</p><p>As you pointed out, the air rushes back inward after the inital blast caused by the superheated air at the blast point rising rapidly. If we apply this idea to the expansion of space, the blast or force at the starting point of the big bang may have also been so explosive causing a super heated void if you will in space/time at that point that would dwarf any nebulea, star, etc... that we see today. As the expansion took place, the inital force or blast may have retracted in much the same way; however the heavier elements, gases, etc.. would continue to expand as they may have been forced out beyond the retraction point; if you know what I mean. The retracted blast wouldn't need to be acted upon by an outside force to retract in this sense, but rather retracting to fill the intial void.</p><p>In some sense or another purhaps it was here between the retraction point and the continuous expansion point (an event horizon purhaps if you'd want to call it that) that Dark energy in a higher concentration at the time would have developed; and rapidly assisted the expansion of gases & elements. Anything before this point would have fallen back into the intial void. This would account for dark energy remnants within galaxies, etc... because it expanded along with the gases and elements that formed everything we see today. The retracted blast would then of course contain a lot of expected radio frequency "noise", along with an abundance of other radiation that we at this point would not be able to detect as it is beyond the distance light has traveled. Am I batting way out in left field on this one? "Gets ready for the lashing" </DIV></p><p>The above is where MeteorWayne asked me to re-review the "standard" Big Bang theory... which I did. Though this theory can be applied to the "Singularity" as mentioned in the article; I can assure you I'm not trying to attract a witch hunt to take place, just an idea of my own based on what is currently known about the present universe. In science we know that any expansion of atoms, etc... IS an explosion to expand at the rate many astrophysists believe the universe must've expanded at. </p><p>Your probably thinking "Why this theory? Why is this amature trying to dispute "proven" current theories?"Here is my reasons. Basically current theories and observations would also be explained by the same process as what I discribe, and in addition explain the "Background noise" heard in the recent study. Secondly, my final post in the topic "Background noise?" was this:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>That's the kind of theory I was getting at. No one really knows what happened at the initial start of the expansion of the universe. Eienstein even believed something doesn't form out of nothing. I read one article that suggested that the expansion of the universe took place at a many times the speed of light; yet with all other theories I read would make anything moving faster then the speed of light impossible. There are numerous sites and books I read that suggest the universe had to have formed relatively quickly for one reason or another. It just sounds like everything looks like an explosion to me. A massive reaction to god knows what. But are you suggesting the universe first expanded slowly and gradually sped up? I'm thinking along the lines of a more violent beginning. Here's why MeteorWayne. If the universes expansion was more "calm"... a gradual expansion, wouldn't the heavier elements form and remain closer to the origin of the expansion then spread throughout the universe? and the lighter elements at the outer edges? Because in a calm expansion the gas clouds forming during expansion I would have to say would have a greater density closer to the origin, and a lighter density in our universes outer regions. But what we see is at various depths in the universe the gas clouds tend to be of similiar densities, and all are dense enough to form stars and other stellar gases evenly throughout various galaxies & nebulea. These gas clouds, many stellar objects, etc... are all moving at great speeds. Even the density of the universe itself is uneven, as other articles I have read suggest. This would be quite expected in a universe with a violent beginning. </p><p>Of course the theories of dark matter & dark energy are very sketchy to say the least, I agree. So it is hard to include that as well. I was merely suggesting an explanation to how it would have been distributed "IF" it exists... and how it could have developed along with the rest of the universe.</p><p>I've also gone astray a bit, lol. But I believe I needed to explain so that anyone reading this would have a clear understanding to what I was trying to say.What are your thoughts?</DIV></p><p> </p><p>This is where my second reason comes in. I believe my statement above could be true. Heavier & denser gases and elements would remain closer to the initial "singularity" that started it all, and would have expanded much more slowly. A result of an explosive beginning would have resulted in what we see today. It also explains the universes density being uneven. In the words of<font size="1" class="f" color="#222222"> George F. R. Ellis "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."</font></p><p> </p><p>Now with all that out there, what is your take on all this? *...and the witch hunt begins* </p></div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
derekmcd
Guest
The FLRW metric uses, as a first approximation, a universe that is homogenous and istropic. The Big Bang theory relies on this approximation and predicts some anisotropies which are evidence by the CMBR. An explosion, even in a vacuum, is anything but homogenous and isotropic. There may be some symmetry to an explosion in a vacuum, but this still doesn't account for what we observe.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
M
Mee_n_Mac
Guest
<p>What heavier and denser elements are you talking about ? Remember all of what we have today (that I would call "heavy") was formed in stars and not "during" the Big Bang. You might want to read ....</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
<p>Oh, I understand that Mee_n_Mac. It's just that if the Big Bang calmly expanded; would it be correct in saying that the gases that make up the nebulea's would be in a much more spherical shape from the central point of the Big Bang? or singluarity? The forming of Lithium and other elements would also form at relatively the same distance from the origin point because everything would have cooled evenly. But this is not the case. We see nebulea clouds at various depths in space; all to which have the same temperatures & gavitational forces to form stars. Also, if I am looking at a galaxy further from the origin of the Big Bang then what we are now, and then look at another galaxy a lot closer, the stars within these galaxies are of similiar ages. There is no distinguishment in tempurature in relative to their distance from the origin point of the Big Bang. This to me means that all gases to form these stars were distributed evenly throughout space. I wouldn't think this would happen unless there was an explosive component. Am I wrong in assuming this? During a calm expansion I would also assume that we would see the oldest stars remaining closer to the origin of the big bang then what they are. Also, the nebulea clouds would be in a arc'd formation; would they not? </p><p> </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What heavier and denser elements are you talking about ? Remember all of what we have today (that I would call "heavy") was formed in stars and not "during" the Big Bang. You might want to read ....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis <br />Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
Also, what I mean Mee_n_Mac is that I believe we would see a gradual cooling in the universe, the hotest being closer to the actual origin of the Big Bang, and gradually decrease temperature as it spread outward IF the Big Bang was gradual. But explosively we culd get the temperatures mixed across the universe as we see now in the widely spread out nebulea. Am I wrong? *Not asking for a witch hunt... just curious if my theory meets observations that I purhaps haven't read about, and answers some of today's questions* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
Mee_n_Mac
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, what I mean Mee_n_Mac is that I believe we would see a gradual cooling in the universe, the hotest being closer to the actual origin of the Big Bang, and gradually decrease temperature as it spread outward IF the Big Bang was gradual. But explosively we culd get the temperatures mixed across the universe as we see now in the widely spread out nebulea. Am I wrong? *Not asking for a witch hunt... just curious if my theory meets observations that I purhaps haven't read about, and answers some of today's questions* <br />Posted by <strong>xXTheOneRavenXx</strong></DIV><br /><br />I was trying to figure out how to answer your post prior to this one, as it seemed to contradict itself in some places (IMO), but this one probably has a key point that may lead to a better understanding. First I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "explosive" vs "calm" so my following answer may not quite address your point but we do what we can do. I disagree that a "calm" expansion (which I assume you characterize the present general theory of the BB to be) would result in the hottest region being closer to the "actual origin" of the BB. The term actual origin is a bit perplexing to me because there is no single 1 place that can be said to be that "actual" origin. That you don't quite grasp this looks to me like you've not quite got the underlying concept of the BB. That said let me probably confuse you more on that point with the following line of thought which I hope will convince you that a calm expansion can result in an equal distribution of stuff and temperature. </p><p>Imagine a cube of that encloses perhaps 50% (I just picked that number out of the air for no good reason) of the entire Universe at some point in it's infancy. Let's start with the notion that this cube is filled with a single gas and it has equal density, and therefore temperature, no matter where you look / measure within this cube. If nothing expands then the gas and it's distribution within the cube remain the same, unchanging from year to year. Now let's expand the cube akin to how we think space-time expands now and did back when. If you can imagine this cube being composed of many tiny sub-cubes, each of which doubles (I arbitrarily picked a doubling) in volume in a given time, then the whole, now bigger, cube has also doubled in size. The gas that was in each sub-cube stayed in it's sub-cube as it doubled*. This means the density of the gas in each sub-cube decreased, decreased by 50% of the prior value. Now each sub-cube acted just like every other sub-cube and therefore the density of the gas in the whole big cube I started with is also now at 50% of it's original value and it's still evenly distributed every in the now bigger cube. The temperature is therefore still the same, though lower, everywhere in the big(ger) cube. Now imagine this big(ger) cube is the observable universe, which is a subset of the larger, but unseen to us, whole Universe. </p><p>Now the above is just one step to understanding what we would observe IF the observable universe acted (in a gross overall manner) akin to what I've described above. Let's stop here and a) let those who understand this a lot better than I make any necessary corrections and b) see if you understand / agree with what I've said so far.</p><p>* The thing to remember is that what's believed in the BB theory is that space-time expands and carries whatever matter is embedded in it along "for the ride" as it expands. It's very crudely like a boat being carried in a strong current. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
<p>Sorry Mee_n_Mac, I posted the below before seeing your post pop up. Thank you for your time to explain that. I understand the concept of the universe expanding completely as a whole, and cooling off as a whole. I guess I'm trying to look at it from a different perspective. I'm seeing the singularity as having existed somewhere in space and rapidly expanded outward to a point where our planets, etc... are now beyond a point where we would be able to see the light (if any) of the inital expansion point. From there the universe formed outward (though all galaxies fromed at roughly the same time) rather then as a whole. It's rapid expansion in a violent explosive phanomia from the singularity is what I believed could account for what we see today. </p><p> </p><p><font size="1">I'm guessing what is confusing ppl the most about this theory is the dimention to which I'm viewing the universe, and it's structure. I am looking at it in the context that if we look in a specific direction in space, we would see the CMBR become stronger; suggesting that the origin point for the Big Bang exists somewhere beyond our current sight of 13.7 Billion light years. As all know this indicates that any light beyond that has not had time to reach us yet. If we could peer in the opposite direction we would eventually expect a boundary to the universe where it's expansion has not reached yet. For instance, in this article: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html, it indicates the movement of the Dark Flow is moving</font><font size="1"><font><font face="arial"><font face="arial"> nearly 2 million mph (3.2 million kph)<strong> </strong>toward a region in the sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela. It would be interesting to know if the actual CMB was chnaging in the direction the constellations. Would any change to the CMB indicate a direction towards or away from the origin of the Big Bang?If proven true, then would this not suggest more then one singularity existed, creating essentually more then one universe. The other containing the source of "pull" on this Dark Flow? </font></font></font></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
Mee_n_Mac
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry Mee_n_Mac, I posted the below before seeing your post pop up. Thank you for your time to explain that. I understand the concept of the universe expanding completely as a whole, and cooling off as a whole. I guess I'm trying to look at it from a different perspective. I'm seeing the singularity as having existed somewhere in space and rapidly expanded outward to a point where our planets, etc... are now beyond a point where we would be able to see the light (if any) of the inital expansion point. From there the universe formed outward (though all galaxies fromed at roughly the same time) rather then as a whole. It's rapid expansion in a violent explosive phanomia from the singularity is what I believed could account for what we see today. I'm guessing what is confusing ppl the most about this theory is the dimention to which I'm viewing the universe, and it's structure. I am looking at it in the context that if we look in a specific direction in space, we would see the CMBR become stronger; suggesting that the origin point for the Big Bang exists somewhere beyond our current sight of 13.7 Billion light years. As all know this indicates that any light beyond that has not had time to reach us yet. If we could peer in the opposite direction we would eventually expect a boundary to the universe where it's expansion has not reached yet. For instance, in this article: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html, it indicates the movement of the Dark Flow is moving nearly 2 million mph (3.2 million kph) toward a region in the sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela. It would be interesting to know if the actual CMB was chnaging in the direction the constellations. Would any change to the CMB indicate a direction towards or away from the origin of the Big Bang?If proven true, then would this not suggest more then one singularity existed, creating essentually more then one universe. The other containing the source of "pull" on this Dark Flow? <br />Posted by <strong>xXTheOneRavenXx</strong></DIV><br /><br />Perhaps at lunch I'll try to address why I think your concept won't result in what we observe today but first let me understand what you think happened. the "explosion" produced a blast front that travelled out in space and behind that front was / is a relatively cool and less dense region. In front of the front was the vacuum of space. You think the CMBR is the light coming from the blast front as it spreads out, travelling through space. Am I understanding your concept correctly ?</p><p>As for any Dark Flow ... that's so speculative at this time I would ignore it in trying to figure out how the Universe works. Get the basics down and then tune the theory to account for all the odd specific circumstances.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
<p>Yes, that is precisely it Mee_n_Mac. I guess it's harder to explain then I thought. Space to me is very fascinating. I like to learn as much as I can about it. If I don't know, I ask. You can't learn if you don't ask right? ...and you'll never know the answer to a theory you have if you don't present it.</p><p>I was thinking that this "noise" in the radio waves that was six times louder then expected might be the result of the Event Horizon I spoke of close to the origin of the Big Bang. If there was a retraction point (as scene in atomic explosions, but reacted a bit differently in this case due to the size and magnitude) in the original blast say some 380,000 light years from the origin point where all neutrino's etc... would have been forced back to a central point as in the case with an atomic explosion.. except in that case the retracted blast has positive & negitive air pressures controlling where it goes. In this case my theory is relying on this same affect working with whatever condensed material the singuarity that began it all was made of. Anything beyond the retraction point I spoke of would have greatly expanded due to the (at that time) condensed forces of Dark energy. As the universe continued to expand, Dark energy interacted more and more to get the result we speculate is going on now. The division between the two area's (retraction & expansion points) I spoke of I call the universes Event Horizon. We cannot see beyond this point much like we cannot see into a black hole. This enhanced radio noise could "possibly" indicate proof of such a "universal origin point"; could it not? The CMBR I believe is in fact what you said. It's like looking into two different directions in space. In one direction you have this radio noise (the direction of the universe origin point), and from that point outwards you have the CMBR. (Background noise resembling the outbound shockwave.) Also due to the violent nature of such an explosion would result in an uneven density and scattered heating & cooling throughout the universe as we do today. (ie. the wide spread nebulea all having similar temperatures regardless of their location in the universe.)</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps at lunch I'll try to address why I think your concept won't result in what we observe today but first let me understand what you think happened. the "explosion" produced a blast front that travelled out in space and behind that front was / is a relatively cool and less dense region. In front of the front was the vacuum of space. You think the CMBR is the light coming from the blast front as it spreads out, travelling through space. Am I understanding your concept correctly ?As for any Dark Flow ... that's so speculative at this time I would ignore it in trying to figure out how the Universe works. Get the basics down and then tune the theory to account for all the odd specific circumstances. <br />Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
Mee_n_Mac
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, that is precisely it Mee_n_Mac. I guess it's harder to explain then I thought. Space to me is very fascinating. I like to learn as much as I can about it. If I don't know, I ask. You can't learn if you don't ask right? ...and you'll never know the answer to a theory you have if you don't present it.I was thinking that this "noise" in the radio waves that was six times louder then expected might be the result of the Event Horizon I spoke of close to the origin of the Big Bang. If there was a retraction point (as scene in atomic explosions, but reacted a bit differently in this case due to the size and magnitude) in the original blast say some 380,000 light years from the origin point where all neutrino's etc... would have been forced back to a central point as in the case with an atomic explosion.. except in that case the retracted blast has positive & negitive air pressures controlling where it goes. In this case my theory is relying on this same affect working with whatever condensed material the singuarity that began it all was made of. Anything beyond the retraction point I spoke of would have greatly expanded due to the (at that time) condensed forces of Dark energy. As the universe continued to expand, Dark energy interacted more and more to get the result we speculate is going on now. The division between the two area's (retraction & expansion points) I spoke of I call the universes Event Horizon. We cannot see beyond this point much like we cannot see into a black hole. This enhanced radio noise could "possibly" indicate proof of such a "universal origin point"; could it not? The CMBR I believe is in fact what you said. It's like looking into two different directions in space. In one direction you have this radio noise (the direction of the universe origin point), and from that point outwards you have the CMBR. (Background noise resembling the outbound shockwave.) Also due to the violent nature of such an explosion would result in an uneven density and scattered heating & cooling throughout the universe as we do today. (ie. the wide spread nebulea all having similar temperatures regardless of their location in the universe.) <br />Posted by <strong>xXTheOneRavenXx</strong></DIV></p><p>I haven't had a chance to dogest all of the above but the 1'st question that comes to mind is how to you square away the redshifts of distant objects indicating that they are receeding away from us at speeds > C and Relativity ? Also if you explosion happened then we here on Earth must be awfully "lucky" because it would seem we're pretty close to the origin of that explosion.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
Well, it's like this. The explosion was of the very basic substances. The very same as what is theorized in the mainstream Big Bang theory. In the intial explosionthat I theorize too place; the substances (whatever it might have been) was thrown outward. At about a range of 380,000 light years we have a retraction of this substance (ie similar effect as an atomic bomb here on Earth). I am assuming this because gravity is a factor throughout the universe so thus I'd have theorize that the core of the exposion would have collapsed in on itself after exhausting it's energy. (ie much like a collapsing star.) causing the retracting force because of the magnitude. However just beyond the 380,000 light years with the assistance of Dark Energy, the majority of the substance from the intial explosion escapes the retraction force. As the shockwave (CMBR) moved outward from the center point (the Universal Event Horizon), the area in between formed what we know now as the universe. So it wouldn't at all be a surprise to detect the CMBR in whatever direction we looked. To explain my answer to your question about the redshift: During a galaxies forming process; the materials would still be moving at a great velocity away from the center point. We ourselves many not be near the center point at all, but rather the substances that formed the galaxies we are looking at were expelled from the universal center at a greater velocity in their trajectory then the substance that formed our galaxy. (An expected possibility as a result of a chaotic uncontrolled explosion). (Not sure if I'm explaining that clearly.) The redshift we see now can be explained by this occurrance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
Mee_n_Mac
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So it wouldn't at all be a surprise to detect the CMBR in whatever direction we looked. Posted by <strong>xXTheOneRavenXx</strong></DIV></p><p>It's not just that we see the CMBR whereever we look, it's that it's the same; same magnitude same spectral content (redshift) wherever we look. Imagine the Earth was not at the center of your explosion. It's being carried away from that center at some velocity. If we look in the direction we are "going" to the CMBR and then look in the opposite direction we should see a different redshift, a different Doppler shift really. We don't. Now the rest of this answer follows below ...</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To explain my answer to your question about the redshift: During a galaxies forming process; the materials would still be moving at a great velocity away from the center point. We ourselves many not be near the center point at all, but rather the substances that formed the galaxies we are looking at were expelled from the universal center at a greater velocity in their trajectory then the substance that formed our galaxy. (An expected possibility as a result of a chaotic uncontrolled explosion). (Not sure if I'm explaining that clearly.) The redshift we see now can be explained by this occurrance. <br />Posted by <strong>xXTheOneRavenXx</strong></DIV><br /><br />I don't think the redshift can be explained as a result. Let's remember that if something has mass it can't exceed the speed of light, C. So if we on the Earth had some residual velocity due to the explosion, it can only be < C. Other stuff making up other parts of the Universe has the same limitation. So I'd expect the maximum differential velocity between any 2 objects to be < 2C. The CMBR has a redshift corresponding to ~1090C (IIRC). Other galaxies have redshifts corresponding to velocites /> 7C. How can that be ? Either we're misinterpreting the spectrum and it's not red<em>shift</em> or relativity wasn't working some billions of years ago.</p><p>EDIt : Odd formatting note. I typed > 7C above, shorthand for greater than 7C but Pluck adds a slash in front of the > sign. Odd it didn't do it in front of the < sign or the > signs in this sentence. It even returns after I edit and delete said /. Either that or Pluck isn't accepting my deletion of the / for some reason.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, it's like this. The explosion was of the very basic substances. The very same as what is theorized in the mainstream Big Bang theory. In the intial explosionthat I theorize too place; the substances (whatever it might have been) was thrown outward.<br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>The problem here is related to Mee-n-Mac's point about mass velocity not exceeding the speed of light. The "expansion" you are describing is what I would describe as "spacetime" expansion, where objects in motion simply stay in motion. What the mainstream is describing as 'space expansion' however is something very different. According to mainstream theory, it is not just the objects that are moving away from each other, but presumably it is the space between the objects (galaxies) that is expanding over time. This expansion of "space" presumably allows for 'faster than light expansion', but it is not due to the velocity of the objects, it is due to the expansion of space.</p><p>I'm not endorsing or condemning andy of these ideas, but you should understand there are differences between what you are describing as "expansion" and the notion of expanding space. Where this comes into play is trying to determine the directional velocity components of objects which are *NOT* related to "space expansion". I don't believe (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that the any sort of directional velocity components have ever been isolated from the expansion of "space". </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
<p> In response to the below quote, I wasn't sure if we have had the oppurtunity to explore all angles of space from earth. But you are correct, we haven't detected any change in the CMBR. So, if I can assume (I hate using that word) for a moment that if we look at the depth we can see into space up to 380,000 light years before the Big Bang, is it possible we could be just looking at one side of the original explosion? (Please try to follow me on this) If the explosion of the Big Bang occurred in similar form to how magnetic fields appear (1/2 hour glass shape) except in the case of my theory; these fields do not leave a physical body. In this case the universal explosion would then be full hour glass shape, then the entire CMBR we see would then appear at the same magnitude & the same red shift no matter where we look, except at a given point in space where we are looking directly towards the Universal Event Horizon. This would mean that all the galaxies, nebulea, etc... we currently see only account for 1/2 of the real universe. This would make the total diameter of the Event Horizon I spoke of at approximately 760,000 light years across, and possibly account for the uneven density in the universe we see, would it not?(Not trying to extend my arguement, just a theory)</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not just that we see the CMBR whereever we look, it's that it's the same; same magnitude same spectral content (redshift) wherever we look. Imagine the Earth was not at the center of your explosion. It's being carried away from that center at some velocity. If we look in the direction we are "going" to the CMBR and then look in the opposite direction we should see a different redshift, a different Doppler shift really. We don't. Now the rest of this answer follows below ...I don't think the redshift can be explained as a result. </DIV> </p><p> This second portion below, I though could be argued that when the initial expansion occurred, we are uncurtain what form the substance of the singularity was in when it first expanded or exploded. Purhaps this substance had no mass and was capable of breaking the speed of light at the time. As nebulea's and other bodies formed during the expansion and gained mass; of course we would see changes to the velocity. (Am I way out in left field on this one?) It's just a thought. This perplexing question and this whole theory for some reason just came to my mind one night. I just decided to post it here to see 1. How possible it was. and 2. I never knew if this theory would have any affect on how we currently interpret the universe. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let's remember that if something has mass it can't exceed the speed of light, C. So if we on the Earth had some residual velocity due to the explosion, it can only be < C. Other stuff making up other parts of the Universe has the same limitation. So I'd expect the maximum differential velocity between any 2 objects to be < 2C. The CMBR has a redshift corresponding to ~1090C (IIRC). Other galaxies have redshifts corresponding to velocites /> 7C. How can that be ? Either we're misinterpreting the spectrum and it's not redshift or relativity wasn't working some billions of years ago.EDIt : Odd formatting note. I typed > 7C above, shorthand for greater than 7C but Pluck adds a slash in front of the > sign. Odd it didn't do it in front of the < sign or the > signs in this sentence. It even returns after I edit and delete said /. Either that or Pluck isn't accepting my deletion of the / for some reason. <br /> Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
DrRocket
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As many of you know, I am very new to this site. I also had the privilege of briefly bringing portions of this up in a previous topic with MeteorWayne in the Background noise? discussion thread. But I figured it belonged in it's own thread. In the previous discussion I also indicated that I have read extensive articles, books, and seen videos on the Big Bang subject. Though there are many theories, I would like to extend my hand to the astronomers & astrophysists out there, and see what feedback I get. *Prepares to duck a few knives & text books* Okay, here it goes.... I'd like to first post this article that I went back and read *As per part of MeteorWayne's suggestion*.I've also re-reviewed some others as well. Big Bang Theory - The Premise The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory. Big Bang Theory - Common MisconceptionsThere are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory? First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery. Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory? Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4 In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. Article located at: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ My Theory: This theory kind of resolves three things, the "Background noise" detected recently; and my version of the Big Bang Theory, and the distribution of Darl energy/matter "IF" it exists. 1st dispute: I'm not an expert by any means; however I would have to dispute the first misconception about the Big Bang not being an explosion. This theory explains why I believe the Big Bang was indeed an explosion process.For a second take what we know here on Earth about atomic explosions and apply it to the scale of the big bang. Did anyone ever notice when an atomic bomb goes off, it not only vaporizes everything in it's path; but he blast also also travels in two directions… out as well as inward again. If you put into persepective the size of the explosion the Big Bang would have had to be "IF" there was one, can there be something other then simple vaporization at it's origin point? I mean, could this "boom" in the radio waves be caused from the results of an explosion of this magnitude? It would be kind of a concentration of radio frequency at the origion point would it not? After retreating, Atomic explosions here on Earth travel upward and in some cases completly out of the atmosphere such as Russia's bus size bomb. However if a tremedously larger version is set off in space; were does it go besides out... how does an explosion like that react in space? If you think of Atomic explosions, most would think the force would just go in one direction until it's driving energy disapates, however as I explained it doesn't. Mushroom clouds are a visible indication to us of the direction of the retreated force, deep in space could the force for whatever reason have retreated back to one singular location in space... the origion point. MeteorWayne's response to this: Of course I replied with this which answers why any dark energy matter would also be distrubed throughout space as well:The above is where MeteorWayne asked me to re-review the "standard" Big Bang theory... which I did. Though this theory can be applied to the "Singularity" as mentioned in the article; I can assure you I'm not trying to attract a witch hunt to take place, just an idea of my own based on what is currently known about the present universe. In science we know that any expansion of atoms, etc... IS an explosion to expand at the rate many astrophysists believe the universe must've expanded at. Your probably thinking "Why this theory? Why is this amature trying to dispute "proven" current theories?"Here is my reasons. Basically current theories and observations would also be explained by the same process as what I discribe, and in addition explain the "Background noise" heard in the recent study. Secondly, my final post in the topic "Background noise?" was this: This is where my second reason comes in. I believe my statement above could be true. Heavier & denser gases and elements would remain closer to the initial "singularity" that started it all, and would have expanded much more slowly. A result of an explosive beginning would have resulted in what we see today. It also explains the universes density being uneven. In the words of George F. R. Ellis "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." Now with all that out there, what is your take on all this? *...and the witch hunt begins* <br />Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>A few things here need clarification.</p><p>1. Hawking, Ellis and Penrose did not extend general relativity. They applied general relativity to the observed present conditions of the universe to conclude that, if general relativity is correct, the universe existed in a very compact form in the past.</p><p>2. They did not predict that the universe began in a singularity. They concluded that if general relativity is correct, then the mathematical model results in an singularity at time 0. The singularity is a breakdown in the mathematical model, the breakdown of the model of space-time as a semi-Riemanian manifold since the curvature tensor ceases to exist. It predicts infnite curvature. This basically means that at the earliest times (well under 1 second) that our knowledge of physics is insufficient to describe what is going on.</p><p>3. Ellis quite right in that the basis for cosmological analysis based on general relativity assumes that the universe is, on the largest scales, homogeneous and isotropic. This is called the cosmological principle, and it implies that the Earth holds no special location or perspective on the universe and that, ignoring local features, the picture of the universe that we see would be the same as that seen by an observer anywhere else in the universe. This assumption cannot be proved. It might be disproved, if, for instance, the astronomical sky, at the largest scales, looked different when we look in different directions. So far it looks the same.</p><p>4. If you accept the Big Bang model as derived from general relativity there is literally no meaning to the phrase "before the Big Bang". General relativity models the universe as a 4-dimensional manifold called space-time. The Big Bang model derived from it results in there being a point of origin for space-time. Both space and time itself literally came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Within that model you cannot talk of time "before" the Big Bang because there was no time.</p><p>5. You might want to read some of the work of Jim Peebles (P.J.E. Peebles). While Penzias and Wilson did indeed do the experiment that discovered the cosmic background radiation, it was Peebles who recognized what it was that Penzias and Wilson had found in this source of uniform microwave radiation, His book <em>Principles of Physical Cosmology</em> is a standard text.</p><p>6. The problem with your notion that heavier and denser elements would have stayed closer to the original singularity, is that the initial singularity is EVERYWHERE. This may be a bit difficult to get your head around, but that initial point is now the entire universe. There is no point of origin that remains. It has expanded to become the whole enchilada. The process whereby that happens and the reason for the overall extreme uniformity while there is also the "lumpiness" of stars, galaxies, etc. is very complicated and not completely settles. It involves a speculative theory, but one that is rapidly gaining empirical evidence, called inflation. For an explanation read <em>The Inflationary Universe</em> by Alan Guth, one of the creators of the theory. While that theory is rather complicated I can give you a simple way to see that it is possible for a point to continuously expand to all of a Euclidean space. For t between 0 and 1 inclusive consider the function that sends a vector <strong>X </strong>to t<strong>X. </strong>For t=o this sends all points in Euclidean space (vectors) to the zero vector and for t=1 it sends each point to itself. As t ranges over [0,1] this provides a continuous expansion of the point to all of Euclidean space. In fact you get all of Euclidean space, with a scale factor as soon as t is larger than 0.</p><p> </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
As I said before, you guys ARE the xperts. But I will have to read some of Pebbles work. Thank you Dr.Rocket. Yes, it is very complicated for one to get their head around. I cannot imagine that no origin point would be left, and trying to swallow that everything IS part of that origin point. As many of you professionals have been working on the study of the universe for a long time, some decades... my theory came from a simple thought that for whatever reason entered my mind. I will see what I can do about read some of those references you gave before entering into text any other theories that may come to mind. So far, that has been the only one. Thank you again. Hope I didn't waste anyones time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
D
derekmcd
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem here is related to Mee-n-Mac's point about mass velocity not exceeding the speed of light. The "expansion" you are describing is what I would describe as "spacetime" expansion, where objects in motion simply stay in motion. What the mainstream is describing as 'space expansion' however is something very different. According to mainstream theory, it is not just the objects that are moving away from each other, but presumably it is the space between the objects (galaxies) that is expanding over time. This expansion of "space" presumably allows for 'faster than light expansion', but it is not due to the velocity of the objects, it is due to the expansion of space.I'm not endorsing or condemning andy of these ideas, but you should understand there are differences between what you are describing as "expansion" and the notion of expanding space. Where this comes into play is trying to determine the directional velocity components of objects which are *NOT* related to "space expansion". I don't believe (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that the any sort of directional velocity components have ever been isolated from the expansion of "space". <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p> </p><p>Saying that 'spacetime' expands has no meaning in General Relativity. Spacetime is a measure of events whereas space is a measure of distance within the spacetime manifold. It is the metric by which we measure the distances between events that is expanding. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A few things here need clarification.1. Hawking, Ellis and Penrose did not extend general relativity. They applied general relativity to the observed present conditions of the universe to conclude that, if general relativity is correct, the universe existed in a very compact form in the past.</DIV></p><p>True, but the amount of compactness could only be determined with very limited precision, and would depend upon a variety of a factors that could affect that "compactness". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. They did not predict that the universe began in a singularity.</DIV></p><p>Ok.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They concluded that if general relativity is correct, then the mathematical model results in an singularity at time 0. </DIV></p><p>I would again suggest that this "presumes" a variety of "conditions" that really cannot be determined with infinite precision.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The singularity is a breakdown in the mathematical model, the breakdown of the model of space-time as a semi-Riemanian manifold since the curvature tensor ceases to exist. It predicts infnite curvature. This basically means that at the earliest times (well under 1 second) that our knowledge of physics is insufficient to describe what is going on.3. Ellis quite right in that the basis for cosmological analysis based on general relativity assumes that the universe is, on the largest scales, homogeneous and isotropic. This is called the cosmological principle, and it implies that the Earth holds no special location or perspective on the universe and that, ignoring local features, the picture of the universe that we see would be the same as that seen by an observer anywhere else in the universe. This assumption cannot be proved. It might be disproved, if, for instance, the astronomical sky, at the largest scales, looked different when we look in different directions. So far it looks the same.</DIV></p><p>Well, "dark flows" have been observed that would seem to require massive gravity wells to exist just outside of our visible sliver of the universe. I think the issue of homegenity remains to be seen. It's important to keep in mind that we can only observe a tiny little visible sliver of the entire physical universe. While our little piece of the pie might look pretty homogenous, that is not necessarily true everywhere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4. If you accept the Big Bang model as derived from general relativity there is literally no meaning to the phrase "before the Big Bang". General relativity models the universe as a 4-dimensional manifold called space-time. The Big Bang model derived from it results in there being a point of origin for space-time. Both space and time itself literally came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Within that model you cannot talk of time "before" the Big Bang because there was no time.</DIV></p><p>Um, what then was the 'cause' of the "bang" if there was no such thing as time before the bang? </p><p>It seems to me that expansion of "space' in Einstein's time may have been able to have been "explained" in terms of a non-flat universe. In other words, were we to have discovered that the unvierse is not flat (I think that's what Einstein himself assumed), the notion of expansion of space may have been a function of the non-flatness. As far as I know however, the universe is "flat" and that particular idea remains an enigma. </p><p>I think where most novices get "lost" in bang theory is in the "nature' of expansion. Most tend to assume it's like a physical explosion, where objects in motions stay in motion. That type of "spacetime" expansion" is easy enough to understand. What most folks who are new to the subject fail to realize is that 'expansion" of "space" is a very different idea, and not as easy to understand. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Saying that 'spacetime' expands has no meaning in General Relativity. Spacetime is a measure of events whereas space is a measure of distance within the spacetime manifold. It is the metric by which we measure the distances between events that is expanding. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It occurs to me that this depends on how one defines "General Relativity", specifically with or without constants. If the universe was not "flat", this notion of space expansion might be more easily understood. I don't believe that Einstein knew whether or not the universe was flat. The only time he attempted to introduce a constant into GR was to explain a static, or non expanding or contracting universe. Once Hubble's information became available, the need for a constant became unncessary, and he removed it again. My assumption would be that he believed that the universe was not static, and that that we could easily be living in a curved universe. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
<p>That's right, Einstein did correct his theory of "General Relativity". However, I do not believe the universe IS flat. Didn't this same discussion come up about the earth centeries ago? If we take a look at the "Dark Flow"... couldn't that be attracted to the other "lobe" of the universe IF the universe is in fact hour glass shaped? Really all this would mean is that there is a greater gravitational pull in that area of the other lobe. The flow wouldn't necessarity have to pass through a "center point" but rather cross between the lobe of the universe we can see, through an area where the universe hasn't expanded into... and into the other lobe where the greater gravitational force exists. The center point I spoke of would merely appear as a pin point in space to us, and unless we observed every inch of the sky... we could miss it entirely.</p><p> </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It occurs to me that this depends on how one defines "General Relativity", specifically with or without constants. If the universe was not "flat", this notion of space expansion might be more easily understood. I don't believe that Einstein knew whether or not the universe was flat. The only time he attempted to introduce a constant into GR was to explain a static, or non expanding or contracting universe. Once Hubble's information became available, the need for a constant became unncessary, and he removed it again. My assumption would be that he believed that the universe was not static, and that that we could easily be living in a curved universe. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In response to the below quote, I wasn't sure if we have had the oppurtunity to explore all angles of space from earth. But you are correct, we haven't detected any change in the CMBR. So, if I can assume (I hate using that word) for a moment that if we look at the depth we can see into space up to 380,000 light years before the Big Bang, is it possible we could be just looking at one side of the original explosion? (Please try to follow me on this) If the explosion of the Big Bang occurred in similar form to how magnetic fields appear (1/2 hour glass shape) except in the case of my theory; these fields do not leave a physical body. </DIV></p><p>You'll have to explain then how you got a physical universe out of these fields.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In this case the universal explosion would then be full hour glass shape, then the entire CMBR we see would then appear at the same magnitude & the same red shift no matter where we look, except at a given point in space where we are looking directly towards the Universal Event Horizon.</DIV></p><p>What would your theory "predict" at that special point?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This would mean that all the galaxies, nebulea, etc... we currently see only account for 1/2 of the real universe. This would make the total diameter of the Event Horizon I spoke of at approximately 760,000 light years across, and possibly account for the uneven density in the universe we see, would it not?</DIV></p><p>You'll have to elaborate a bit. I don't see why you believe the physical universe is that small, or how your theory would lead to a non homogenous density layout of material objects. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
M
michaelmozina
Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's right, Einstein did correct his theory of "General Relativity". However, I do not believe the universe IS flat.</DIV></p><p>I think you'd have to show some other evidence that the universe is not flat, and how you came to that conclusion. I would have to say that the expansion of space idea would tend ot favor your arguement, but the last time I recall reading anything about about the shape of the universe, it was considered to be flat, or very close to flat.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Didn't this same discussion come up about the earth centeries ago?</DIV></p><p>Centuries ago, I doubt they believed in more than a single galaxy at best case.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If we take a look at the "Dark Flow"... couldn't that be attracted to the other "lobe" of the universe. IF the universe is in fact hour glass shaped? </DIV></p><p>Such a "flow" could be related to a lot of things. You'd have to come up with some "predictions' that are not expected in current theory and then show how they matematically correlate to these flows. That might then be considered 'evidence' of what you're suggesting. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Really all this would mean is that there is a greater gravitational pull in that area of the other lobe.</DIV></p><p>Assuming this is the case, why are there only two lobes, and how do you come up with a physical size of the universe that seems to be incongruent with current theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The flow wouldn't necessarity have to pass through a "center point" but rather cross between the lobe of the universe we can see, through an area where the universe hasn't expanded into... </DIV></p><p>I don't quite follow you here. You'll need to elaborate a bit.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and into the other lobe where the greater gravitational force exists. The center point I spoke of would merely appear as a pin point in space to us, and unless we observed every inch of the sky... we could miss it entirely. <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>I think I follow your basic idea, but I'm unclear how you got a physical universe out of a non physical field, and why that would create only two "lobes" as you call them. </p><p>Let me suggest the following concept to you to explain what I mean. Suppose you stated with two 'singluarities', one composed of matter, the other of antimatter, and you slammed them together in opposite directions with each one traveling at near the speed of light. Such an event might create an 'hourglass" shape as well. How would your specific theory "predict" a different sort of layout from something like the theory I just described? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
<p>You ask a lot of good questions michaelmozina. After all, I am just an amature and probably not as knowledgeable in the field as you are. My whole prediction of a centre point is that I am theorizing that since we cannot see beyond 380,000 light years is because everything from the center of the inital "explosion" *center point* out to 380,000 light years collapsed in on itself. Everything from 380,000 light years outward was pushed beyond the retraction point *380,000 light years* with the help of dark energy. If Dark energy affect things the way it's theorized by other astrophysists, would it be safe so assume that if we turn time backwards that dark energy itself would also condense with the rest of the universe. I am theorizing that the force of the inital explosion forced the neutrino based substance outward. Once reaching 380,000 light years we see a retraction, but for the most part a condensed Dark Energy kept the momentum of the majority the substance going *Things that are in motion, stay in motion* to what we see today as an ever expanding universe. Atomic explosions tend to act in the same manor, but without the Dark Energy factor. The explosion first expands outward, then contracts in on itself due to pressure changes. However a small amount of the explosive force does continue outward. I'm applying this model to the model of the Big Bang. Of course we are talking on a much larger scale and because of that, I think once an explosion reaches a certain size, Dark Energy becomes a factor. Gravity itself would no longer be a factor in slowing down an explosions momentum, thus the expansion of the explosion continues except for around the center point out to a given distance.</p><p>I used the "lobes" as an answer to the uneven density measured in the universe. I don't think we have an uneven density because an explosion tend to be evenly distributed in a circular circumference. Since the CMBR appears to us at the same magnitude, etc... I am modelling that purhaps this could be answered with a dual lobed explosion. This would mean each lobe would carry the same density, answering the uneven desity question. I also looked at magnitizm and magnetic fields. I thought here along the lines that purhaps along with all other objects being condensed at one time, that purhaps magnetic fields themselves derived in the same manor. As we see an arching in magnetic fields from object such as the earth, the sun, and all other bodies that have magnetics fields, I theorized that if there were no body but rather just a substance that the magnetic field would take the shape of an hour glass rather then just an arch.</p><p>It is from this point that as the substance continued it's momentum outward, we have the developing of other gases an an incredible temperature. It's the forming of nebulea that attracted most of the heat into "clumps" rather then it continuing on the even distribution from the original explosion. The CMBR we see today is the outer edge of the original explosion area that escaped the retraction point of 380,000 light years. When I came up with the diameter of 760,000 light years, I just factored in that if we are saying that we cannot see anything from the birth of the universe out to 380,000 light years, then if were looking from the other side of the explosion we would also expect that we could see any closed then 380,000 light years either. Thus making the origin point smack in the middle.</p><p>Like I said before, you guys are the experts. I'm just throwing out a theory here. I'm just curious that with everything you know about the universe..... Is this theory possible? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
I also think that the CMBR might be itself a little misleading. Purhaps we are looking at the CMBR all wrong. I know earlier I mentioned that the CMBR would be the outer edge of this explosion, but another thought came to mind. What if the CMBR was in fact a jet of microwave immitions from the point of origin. Kind of like how Xray immition jets from a black hole work. If we from earth were only looking side-on to one of these jets and using it to measure with (CMBR), it's magnitude, distance, etc.. could in fact appear the same to us given the amount of space we have explored. Say for instance we have covered a 45 degree angle looking from earth into space, and see the CMBR as being the same. Well wouldn't this give us the angle of the CMBR? *Simple mathimatics* You'd also have to imagine that the width and length of the jet (CMBR) would be enormous, and it's distance to a starting point or to an ending point from us may still be beyond what we can currently measure. The CMBR's length could be so long in fact that we may not detect any weakening in the microwaves. But it doesn't mean there isn't one. *Sorry for contradicting all my last posts about the CMBR*, but it is possible is it not? In my next post I attached an article that explains a bit more why the universe (as a whole) could be round or flat based on what portion of space we've currently measured. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
X
xXTheOneRavenXx
Guest
<p>In relation to the universe being flat, I also did a little research and found this article that explains about the difference between the observable universe being flat vice the entire universe and what shape it might take on:</p><p>http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=171</p><p>My theory includes the universe as a whole, beyond what we can observe. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 229
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 384
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
NASA's Artemis 3 astronauts will put a moonquake detector on lunar surface
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
NASA's Juno probe captures amazing views of Jupiter's volcanic moon Io (video)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
SETI chief says US has no evidence for alien technology. 'And we never have
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
Ingenuity's travels: New NASA video tracks Mars helicopter's 72 flights
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Question Recommendations for International Research Competitions- Latest: Andrii Dzygunenko
-
-
Space.com is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA. All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram