Well, after doing even more research I forgot entirely about Hubbles Constant. The equal seperation of galaxies could possibly be explained "IF" dark matter were in fact pushing these galaxies apart equally. Thus you would still end up with a red-shift, because in the time it takes light to reach any of these galaxies, they will have already moved a small precentage. (0.007 percent per million years) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
That's dark energy, not dark matter. Dark energy is what is thought to drive the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
<p>Sorry, I meant Dark Energy. Your right, very big difference Speedfreak. But what if the same rule applied for distance between galaxies. I think we might be looking at one in the same force. I think if this was looked at more closely it might rule out the universe being flat. But that's just my opinion. I am by no means an expert on the subject. Again, I'm just curious to know IF my theory is possible. Hell, what if I had shared this thought and it completely changed some astrophysists perspective and it opened new doors to explaining the universe? lol, though very unlikely. But I didn't think it would hurt sharing this to see what sort of response I would get, and the reasons why this theory is or isn't possible. </p><p> </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's dark energy, not dark matter. Dark energy is what is thought to drive the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Well, we have no evidence that suggests that the big-bang was like an explosion, unless we are at the centre of the universe and the explosion was <em>right here</em>. If we assume FLRW type metric expansion, then our observations of the redshifts of distant galaxies, that imply that all those distant galaxies are moving directly away from us, and the further away from us they are, the faster they are moving, well that explanation would apply wherever you were in the universe, rather than just right here. </p><p>Either we are in a very special position, at the centre of the universe, and everything at the large scales is pretty much moving directly away from us through space, or the space is expanding and dragging all the clusters of galaxies apart from each other. Either it is like an explosion that was <em>here</em>, or it is an expansion where everywhere can consider themselves to be at the centre of expansion. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
<p>But if Dark Energy was acting equally on every galaxy, why then must we be at the center? Couldn't we just be being pushed away from our closest galaxies? This would account for the red-shift we see. However you could have galaxies being forced together as they are opposed from other galaxies. Here you would see the mergers of galaxies. Once they are within a certain radius, the force of attraction also work with the repelling galaxies Dark Energy to take over as it would be greater then the repelling force of Dark Energy of the galaxies being forced together. (If you follow me on that one. Kind of hard to explain.) (ie The attraction force of black holes at the center of galaxies). But also Hubbles Constant cannot be used for the most distant galaxies as stated on the above site I mentioned; due to too many errors. I know Dark Energy is a very touchy subject as it is not yet accepted by all. But if what we are seeing is an equal force being exherted on all galaxies in clusters, then the "Local Cluster" could also be being exherted on equally as all others. Then to us we would see a seperation between us and all other galaxies. I couldn't begin to imply that we are at the center of the universe, just that every galactic cluster within the universe is seperating equally due to the propelling force of Dark Energy.What I'm trying to say is that the force that pushes all galaxies apart, also helps pushsome galaxies together. With dark energy pushing, and gavity attracting... you have the merger of these galaxies. Nothing then would imply a flat universe, just different forces acting upon an object. </p><p> </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, we have no evidence that suggests that the big-bang was like an explosion, unless we are at the centre of the universe and the explosion was right here. If we assume FLRW type metric expansion, then our observations of the redshifts of distant galaxies, that imply that all those distant galaxies are moving directly away from us, and the further away from us they are, the faster they are moving, well that explanation would apply wherever you were in the universe, rather than just right here. Either we are in a very special position, at the centre of the universe, and everything at the large scales is pretty much moving directly away from us through space, or the space is expanding and dragging all the clusters of galaxies apart from each other. Either it is like an explosion that was here, or it is an expansion where everywhere can consider themselves to be at the centre of expansion. <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Ok, I think I see what you are getting at. I misunderstood your earlier posts and thought you were implying the expansion was like an explosion with an epicentre, but you seem to accept the mainstream view that the expansion causes all distances to increase by the same factor at any given time - that all galactic clusters are separating "equally".</p><p>But dark energy seems to work like "repulsive" gravity.. it seems to cause the expansion of space to accelerate in the regions between clusters that are not gravitationally bound to each other. I don't see how the same mechanism could be applied to hold the galaxies together (which, in a way, is what dark matter is supposed to do). It seems like two distinct and somewhat opposite mechanisms are required.</p><p>Dark matter is the mechanism that explains the observation that the stars at the edges of galaxies to orbit their galaxies over a similar period as the stars closer to the centre, where the conventional wisdom before those observations was that the stars at the edge should take a lot longer to orbit than the stars closer to the centre. Without the extra but unseen dark matter in those galaxies, the outer stars should fly out of them!</p><p>I don't see how an energy that acts like repulsive gravity, that accelerates the expansion of space, would stop those outer stars from flying out. Those galaxies need more gravity to hold the stars in! Surely if galaxies didn't have the extra gravity provided by dark matter, the stars at the edge would have less gravity binding them to the galaxy and the acceleration of the expansion of space around them would actually help to put more space in between those outer stars and their galactic centres? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
<p> I do believe there is an epicentre to the explosion that created the universe. But I do at the same time agree with the mainstream belief that expansion causes all distances to increase, as well that all galaxies are seperating equally. But the reason for this seperation is due to dark energy repelling these galaxies apart. Any epicentre would be too distant for us to see or masked by the retraction point I spoke of earlier on.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, I think I see what you are getting at. I misunderstood your earlier posts and thought you were implying the expansion was like an explosion with an epicentre, but you seem to accept the mainstream view that the expansion causes all distances to increase by the same factor at any given time - that all galactic clusters are separating "equally".[/Quote]</p><p> Your absolutely correct. Dark energy does repel galaxies, and normally galaxies wouldn't be gravitationally locked. However eventually we see some galaxies merge. This is where I am saying that as Dark Energy while it pushes galaxies apart ends up working with gravity. It exerts a repelling force seperating galaxies, but when this results in eventually two galaxies being pushed towards each other, gravity helps by acting as a pulling force; drawing the galaxies to merge. Dark matter on the other hand works within a galaxy as a force, like you said; holding the outer most stars from flying outward. I think Dark Energy in respect to being the repelling force in the universe is quite different then Dark Matter as being the force to keep the outer most stars within their galaxies. They would be two completely different forces. But when we are talking in respect to galactic mergers, again the repelling force of Dark Energy pushing these galaxies away from other galaxies ends up working with gravity to merge others. The combined force wins out, and you get a galactic merger.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But dark energy seems to work like "repulsive" gravity.. it seems to cause the expansion of space to accelerate in the regions between clusters that are not gravitationally bound to each other. I don't see how the same mechanism could be applied to hold the galaxies together (which, in a way, is what dark matter is supposed to do). It seems like two distinct and somewhat opposite mechanisms are required.Dark matter is the mechanism that explains the observation that the stars at the edges of galaxies to orbit their galaxies over a similar period as the stars closer to the centre, where the conventional wisdom before those observations was that the stars at the edge should take a lot longer to orbit than the stars closer to the centre. Without the extra but unseen dark matter in those galaxies, the outer stars should fly out of them!I don't see how an energy that acts like repulsive gravity, that accelerates the expansion of space, would stop those outer stars from flying out. Those galaxies need more gravity to hold the stars in! Surely if galaxies didn't have the extra gravity provided by dark matter, the stars at the edge would have less gravity binding them to the galaxy and the acceleration of the expansion of space around them would actually help to put more space in between those outer stars and their galactic centres? <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Actually, I am just an amateur as well. The one thing I have going for me, even over many of the professionals in the field today, is that I've been interested in astronomy and have studied it for more than 30 years. In that time, I've probably heard several hundred different theories. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>If I understand you, you mean to suggest that we can't see all the way back in time, not that the universe is only 380,000 light years across? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>The notion of "expansion" today means more than simply "objects in motion stay in motion". By adding a constant into GR again, they are attempting to suggest that "space" expands, not simply 'spacetime' expansion as you are envisioning. There is an additional 'expansion" process in play in Lamba theory. This is how a "superluminal" sort of expansion becomes possible in current theory, whereas in your notion of objects in motion stay in motion, it is not possible for any object to exceed the speed of light. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm just throwing out a theory here. I'm just curious that with everything you know about the universe..... Is this theory possible? <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure I understand your ideas well enough to fully answer that question just yet. 
In your opinion, how old is the universe? </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>
In your opinion, how old is the universe? </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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I do believe there is an epicentre to the explosion that created the universe. But I do at the same time agree with the mainstream belief that expansion causes all distances to increase, as well that all galaxies are seperating equally. But the reason for this seperation is due to dark energy repelling these galaxies apart. Any epicentre would be too distant for us to see or masked by the retraction point I spoke of earlier on. <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>If all clusters of galaxies are separating "equally", then whilst there might or might not be a "geographical" centre of the whole universe <em>(which would seem to be an arbitrary location based on the overall topology - why would it be interesting in any way?)</em>, with the universal expansion - where everywhere at the large scales the space expands at the same rate at any given time, how can there be a centre to that expansion? There seems to be no epicentre of your explosion, if all the particles from that explosion are moving away from each other equally. </p><p>Can you remind us in simple terms what you mean by "retraction point"?</p><p>Why do galactic mergers require anything other than the gravity of the galaxies involved to explain them? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
<p> I was predicting that if there is an epicentre left, then as in atomic explosions it would collapse in on itself due to significent pressures. The retraction point is the point out from the epicentre to which everything would have been drawn back inward to collapse in on itself. It is also from this point that a condensed Dark Energy at the time would have forced the majority in an outward expansion. We see how Dark Energy can act as a greater force then gravity (though the theory of Dark Energy is not absolutely proven to exist).I am predicting that it's force in a condensed form would have acted in this manor; pushing the majority outward whilethe gravitational retraction of a collapsing epicentre would have only affected out to 380,000 light years. That I am theorizing is why we cannot see anything closer to the beginning of the universe because everything out to 380,000 light years would have collapsed back to the epicentre.</p><p> Because of the uneven density in the universe, I played with the notion that what if what we are seeing is just 1/2 of the universe. Then it would be safe to say that if we were looking at the epicentre from the other side it would also appear the same. This would make the total epicentre 760,000 light years across, NOT the entire universe... just the radius of the retraction point.</p><p> </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually, I am just an amateur as well. The one thing I have going for me, even over many of the professionals in the field today, is that I've been interested in astronomy and have studied it for more than 30 years. In that time, I've probably heard several hundred different theories. If I understand you, you mean to suggest that we can't see all the way back in time, not that the universe is only 380,000 light years across</DIV> </p><p> Well, I cannot say I agree with time also forming at the same time as the universe. I think time existed before the universe. If the theory of the universe originating as a singularity is true, then time had to exist for the singularity to form. It's quite the paradox if you ask me. It's like asking if the chicken or the egg came first.</p><p>The universe can still be 13.7 billion yrs old. That factor I am estimating would be the same due to how long planet formation, star formation, nebulea's etc... takes to form, and the relative distance of the viewable universe. We can still use red-shift to determine distance in my theory. It just means the universe is not flat. See when people first thought the earth was flat it was because they couldn't see over the horizon. I know the universe is on a much grander scale. But the same notion, just because you cannot see over the horizon, doesn't mean there isn't one. </p><p>The notion of "expansion" today means more than simply "objects in motion stay in motion". By adding a constant into GR again, they are attempting to suggest that "space" expands, not simply 'spacetime' expansion as you are envisioning. There is an additional 'expansion" process in play in Lamba theory. This is how a "superluminal" sort of expansion becomes possible in current theory, whereas in your notion of objects in motion stay in motion, it is not possible for any object to exceed the speed of light. I'm not sure I understand your ideas well enough to fully answer that question just yet. In your opinion, how old is the universe? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
In your opinion, how old is the universe? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p> There could be an epicentre IF purhaps the universe began in an atomic-like explosion. On earth we havepositive and negitive pressure that make atomic explosions retract and expode upward into a mushroom cloud the way they do. I am going out on a limb in saying purhaps a similiar explosion took place to begin the universe. If so, then we would have some sort of interior pressure I'm assuming caused by such an explosion. If this occurred then everything out to a curtain point would have collapsed in on itself as I mentioned earlier. I'm not sure if this process is possible, just a simple theory that came to mind one night. Not sure why, but I can assure you I wasn't sitting there in bed just trying to think up a theory for the big bang, lol. The whole theory just popped in there, so I figured I would share it here to see what the possibilities were.</p><p>But if I continue where I left off, once particles escaped the retraction point, (with the help of a still very condensed Dark Energy. As they moved outward, cooled, etc... you would see the beginning of nebulea's, star formation, etc... While gravity & Dark matter works to keep galaxies together, Dark Energy continues to repel these objects, and I think all of them equally... unless acted upon by another force. It is true Speedfreak while galactic mergers in theory do not require anything but gravity to bring them together... in my theory they do. If Dark Energy repelsthe galaxies, at some point two or more galaxies will be pushed in the direction of each other. It is here that like I said gravity & Dark Energy work together as a "pushing & pulling" force to bring these galaxies together into a merger. This would explain why we have galactic mergers at the same time that all galaxies seem to be moving in greater distance over time.</p><p> </p><p>It's like the Milky Way and Andromeda being pushed away from other galaxies by Dark Energy, but end up being pushed closer together to each other. The gravity of both these galaxies would also be an additional factor in bringing these galaxies together while all other galaxies are pushed away. Am I confusing anyone yet? Hope I'm not wasting anyones time here. </p><p> </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If all clusters of galaxies are separating "equally", then whilst there might or might not be a "geographical" centre of the whole universe (which would seem to be an arbitrary location based on the overall topology - why would it be interesting in any way?), with the universal expansion - where everywhere at the large scales the space expands at the same rate at any given time, how can there be a centre to that expansion? There seems to be no epicentre of your explosion, if all the particles from that explosion are moving away from each other equally. Can you remind us in simple terms what you mean by "retraction point"?Why do galactic mergers require anything other than the gravity of the galaxies involved to explain them? <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>I know a few people are getting lost in all these posts. So I thought I would post a quick recap:</p><p>In my theory, I discussed an atomic like explosion that started the Big Bang. As atomic bombs retract their force due to positive and negitive pressures, I applied this same action to this senerio. However in space there is no direction of pressure, only inward, thus explaining a collapsing center point. In doing so I had to estimate where in the explosion would particles begin to retract back towards a collapsing center point of the explosion. My estimate was using 380,000 that we can see back to. I used this to explain why we cannot see any objects beyond this point.</p><p>Then there was the problem of the CMBR being measured at the same magnitude, etc... where ever we looked. Well if a collapsing center acted in any way as a collapsing star does, then purhaps what we have is the CMBR actually being a side view of one of the jets from the center point. Much like X-ray immitions from a black hole. Given the grand magnitude an explosion must've been, these jets would be enormous, and appear to us as an even background radiation. Well if we only viewed 45 degrees of the sky from earth, then purhaps the CMBR would appear at the same magnitude.</p><p>Another issue that comes to mind was the uneven density in the universe that seemingly cannot be explained. In this theory the extra density would be accounted for if we were only looking at 1/2 of the universe. If that is the case then the radius of the center point would then be 760,000 light years across if it were to appear thew same from the other side. The epicenter would be directly in the center.</p><p>Then there was the Dark Flow puzzle. I also explained that purhaps a gravitational attraction from the other portion of the universe could be acting on these galaxies. This in my theory could be explained if in fact the universe was hour glass shaped. This shape could be explained if the exploding force acted in the same manor magnetic fields do as we see in such bodies as the sun, earth, and other masses. </p><p>Just above this post I explain how all galaxies can be pushed away from one another while others are pushed & pulled together by the combined forces of Dark Energy & gravity. </p><p> </p><p>Hopefully if I didn't confuse the hell out of anyone, that this is a help to understanding my theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know a few people are getting lost in all these posts. So I thought I would post a quick recap:In my theory, I discussed an atomic like explosion that started the Big Bang. As atomic bombs retract their force due to positive and negitive pressures, I applied this same action to this senerio. However in space there is no direction of pressure, only inward, thus explaining a collapsing center point. In doing so I had to estimate where in the explosion would particles begin to retract back towards a collapsing center point of the explosion. My estimate was using 380,000 that we can see back to. I used this to explain why we cannot see any objects beyond this point. Posted by <strong>xXTheOneRavenXx</strong></DIV></p><p>THX for the recap, it makes it easier to find what you think are your pertinent points. I think you're basing your notion of how an explosion in space would occur based upon what you've seen here on Earth. I think you've got it wrong. Why would stuff retract towards the center other than due to gravity ? On Earth the energy interacts with a pre-existing atmosphere. In you're primordial explosion there is no stuff in space prior to said explosion. In your explosion why wouldn't any retraction act like a uber supernova and collapse the stuff back into a neutron star or black hole ?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then there was the problem of the CMBR being measured at the same magnitude, etc... where ever we looked. Well if a collapsing center acted in any way as a collapsing star does, then purhaps what we have is the CMBR actually being a side view of one of the jets from the center point. Much like X-ray immitions from a black hole. Given the grand magnitude an explosion must've been, these jets would be enormous, and appear to us as an even background radiation. Well if we only viewed 45 degrees of the sky from earth, then purhaps the CMBR would appear at the same magnitude. Posted by <strong>xXTheOneRavenXx</strong></DIV></p><p> I don't understand what you mean by jet. When we talk of jets we generally mean a barrow beam of energy and/or particles. Are you saying the Earth is in some jet and if so why don't we see a difference when looking towards the origin of the jet vs looking 180deg from the origin. If we are outside of the jet, why do we not see it just as we see other jets (due to active galactic centers) ? Perhaps you could make a diagram or pictorial of how you're envisioning this and post it here.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another issue that comes to mind was the uneven density in the universe that seemingly cannot be explained. In this theory the extra density would be accounted for if we were only looking at 1/2 of the universe. If that is the case then the radius of the center point would then be 760,000 light years across if it were to appear thew same from the other side. The epicenter would be directly in the center. Posted by <strong>xXTheOneRavenXx</strong></DIV></p><p> What uneven density ? For the most part the observed universe looks pretty homogenous. The question if how we got clumps of matter from a perfectly homogenous block of pre-BB gunk. The best answer generally agreed upon is that the pre-BB gunk wasn't perfectly homogenous. Quantum mechanics seems to impose certain fluctions in this block and the WMAP data seems to confirm this theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then there was the Dark Flow puzzle. I also explained that perhaps a gravitational attraction from the other portion of the universe could be acting on these galaxies. This in my theory could be explained if in fact the universe was hour glass shaped. This shape could be explained if the exploding force acted in the same manor magnetic fields do as we see in such bodies as the sun, earth, and other masses. Just above this post I explain how all galaxies can be pushed away from one another while others are pushed & pulled together by the combined forces of Dark Energy & gravity. Hopefully if I didn't confuse the hell out of anyone, that this is a help to understanding my theory. <br />Posted by <strong>xXTheOneRavenXx</strong></DIV><br /><br />Like I said before, dark flow(s) are so new and unconfirmed that I wouldn't spend much time trying to work them into some cosmology. I'm still lost how you weave a distance of 380,00 LY from the time of when the Universe became transparent.</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/10/3719f0ec-f127-4ab6-8a40-9e3b49458d83.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe</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>
<p> My retraction theory is based on what we have seen happen with Black holes and stars. If this happens as a result with these objects, I am theorizing the same could have happened in an explosion to create the universe. I'm thinking if this happened then yes, we would have a result similiar to a rather large black hole type entity. The CMBR would then in fact be one of the jets from such an enormous entity. When we measure the magnitude of the CMBR we could in fact be looking side-on to the jet. Yes, I mean narrow beam of energy. But in the case of the center of the universe, this beam would in fact be very broad, and it's length may be to long for us to detect any change in magnitude as of yet. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>THX for the recap, it makes it easier to find what you think are your pertinent points. I think you're basing your notion of how an explosion in space would occur based upon what you've seen here on Earth. I think you've got it wrong. Why would stuff retract towards the center other than due to gravity ? On Earth the energy interacts with a pre-existing atmosphere. In you're primordial explosion there is no stuff in space prior to said explosion. In your explosion why wouldn't any retraction act like a uber supernova and collapse the stuff back into a neutron star or black hole ? </DIV></p><p>Yes, I do mean to say we would be outside any such jet (CMBR). But this "jet" of microwave background radiation would be too broad and too long for us to detect any difference in magnitude at this time. We have only really looked at a small fraction of space. Purhaps from each of the angles we currently view the CMBR would appear the same. I'm still curtain you guys are the experts. Like I said, this is really only a thought that came to my mind for god knows what reason. How probable is this theory? ...and what are the reasons why it wouldn't work. Also in the diagram you show the afterglow light pattern at 400,000 years. I have also heard the figure of 380,000 light years is the closest distance we could see to back to the beginning of the universe. So that is the figure I went with. When I have some time I will try to draw a diagram. </p><p> </p><p>I don't understand what you mean by jet. When we talk of jets we generally mean a barrow beam of energy and/or particles. Are you saying the Earth is in some jet and if so why don't we see a difference when looking towards the origin of the jet vs looking 180deg from the origin. If we are outside of the jet, why do we not see it just as we see other jets (due to active galactic centers) ? Perhaps you could make a diagram or pictorial of how you're envisioning this and post it here. What uneven density ? For the most part the observed universe looks pretty homogenous. The question if how we got clumps of matter from a perfectly homogenous block of pre-BB gunk. The best answer generally agreed upon is that the pre-BB gunk wasn't perfectly homogenous. Quantum mechanics seems to impose certain fluctions in this block and the WMAP data seems to confirm this theory.Like I said before, dark flow(s) are so new and unconfirmed that I wouldn't spend much time trying to work them into some cosmology. I'm still lost how you weave a distance of 380,00 LY from the time of when the Universe became transparent.from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe <br /> Posted by Mee_n_Mac</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>In this article: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575 it explains that some galaxies are indeed moving away from us at the speed of light. I think this also could be answered with the exherted forces of Dark Energy. I believe that Dark Energy has a much greater reach then gravity. Say for instance you have two galaxies with an outward push from their Dark Energy exherting on a single galaxy. The combined force of these galaxies may in fact push the one away at this speed. (I am just using two as a round figure, it could be more). The quite opposite affect is caused when you have two galaxies being pushed together because their repelled from other galaxies by Dark Energy. Once they are within a distance that gravity can cause an affect, then they are also pulled together by their gravitational pull. Does this make sense?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>:In my theory, I discussed an atomic like explosion that started the Big Bang.<br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>What type of nuclear material was around during this epoch that acted as a catalyst for your explosion? </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>
<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>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></p><p> </p><p>Huh? Constants have nothing... absolutely nothing to do with describing a metric expansion in General Relativity (GR).</p><p>The topological structure of the universe being flat, open, or closed has nothing to do with describing a metric expansion in GR with the exception regarding the fate of the expansion.</p><p>Your post has nothing to do with me expaining the difference between 'space' and 'spacetime' and how to properly use them in the context of this discussion.</p><p>It's really quite simple. In GR, space expands, contracts, or is static... spacetime is the manifold in which space can be measured to be expanding, contracting, or remaining static. Spacetime does not expand. </p><p>If you believe in an 'objects in motion, stay in motion' type of universe, then you do not nor can you believe GR describes the universe.</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>
<p>I'm not too sure what sort of material it would have been. I'm pretty curtain no one could predict what it would have been. But I can only estimate a highly compressed & combustable substance with an energy release unlike anything we can currently measure. It's the universe we're talking about after all. I'm sure we're not even close to understanding all of it's inner workings.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What type of nuclear material was around during this epoch that acted as a catalyst for your explosion? <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not too sure what sort of material it would have been. I'm pretty curtain no one could predict what it would have been. But I can only estimate a highly compressed & combustable substance with an energy release unlike anything we can currently measure. It's the universe we're talking about after all. I'm sure we're not even close to understanding all of it's inner workings. <br />Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV><br /><br />IOW, yer just makin' stuff up... <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></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Huh? Constants have nothing... absolutely nothing to do with describing a metric expansion in General Relativity (GR).</DIV></p><p>Rather than us hijack this thread, I think it would be best for you to simply start a new thread and explain the 'cause' of this "expansion" you're describing. In GR, objects that are in motion, certainly can and do stay in motion. An "explosive' type of any event will in fact create an "expansion" of the material over time. The type of expansion described by "space" expansion however is something else altogether different, and it's not as easily understood or explained. It's also something quite different than what most folks imagine when they think of a "big bang" as some type of explosive event. That's all I've been trying to convey in this thread. </p><br /><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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IOW, yer just makin' stuff up... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Well, come on, he did call it "his" theory. Someone had to be the "creator' of this idea. </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>
Someone had to be the "creator' of this idea. </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><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you believe in an 'objects in motion, stay in motion' type of universe, then you do not nor can you believe GR describes the universe. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>FYI, I do not believe that GR *alone* can fully "describe" or "explain" the workings of our universe, and I've never tried to hide that fact. </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>
<p>I will be honest MeteorWayne. I have no idea what sort of substance it would be, or the complete physics behind the development of the universe. However when this thought came to mind, I tried to relate it the best way I could to what we see here on earth in reference to the atomic explosion example I gave. As I said many times in this discussion, I am by no means an expert in this field, and I do not want to be wasting anyone's time. I am just curious to know IF this theory were possible, and if not; why.</p><p>The notion that the universe is flat doesn't seem right. Everywhere I read, the theory behind the universe being flat is because of the equal seperation of galaxies and methods taken to measure these distances. Also the CMBR having the same magnitude, etc... regardless where we observe it from. I am not an astrophysist, scientist, etc... I am just an average guy, steady career, etc... with an interest in space. I cannot explain why this theory came to mind, it just did. As I said before, I decided to share that theory here to see what sort of response it would have. Who knows, purhaps it could have altered some astrophysists point of view and lead to some other discovery about the universe. Or on the other hand it could mean nothing. When I thought about it more, based on the articles, etc... I have read, it seemed to me to fit. But again, you guys ARE the experts. I don't mind constructive criticism at all. But I wouldn't have posted this if I didn't think it just might have some sort of significance. If it turns out this theory is nothing, I'm happy with that. If it turns out to be more, hell I'm sure many would be even happier if it answered some of the most complex questions about the universe.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>Thank you for your time michaelmozina. As I mentioned, I read a lot of theories about the Big Bang. Even still, it is hard for me to grasp. But I do thank everyone for their time to assess this theory of mine. Yes, this theory does contradict other theories, and the mainstream. But hell, I didn't think it would hurt sharing it and see what the experts say about it.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Rather than us hijack this thread, I think it would be best for you to simply start a new thread and explain the 'cause' of this "expansion" you're describing. In GR, objects that are in motion, certainly can and do stay in motion. An "explosive' type of any event will in fact create an "expansion" of the material over time. The type of expansion described by "space" expansion however is something else altogether different, and it's not as easily understood or explained. It's also something quite different than what most folks imagine when they think of a "big bang" as some type of explosive event. That's all I've been trying to convey in this thread. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank you for your time michaelmozina. As I mentioned, I read a lot of theories about the Big Bang. Even still, it is hard for me to grasp. But I do thank everyone for their time to assess this theory of mine. Yes, this theory does contradict other theories, and the mainstream. But hell, I didn't think it would hurt sharing it and see what the experts say about it. <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>It's good to share your ideas and see how they hold up to public scrutiny. That's really the only way you (or anyone else) will ever be able to tell if the idea has any merit. Thanks for sharing your ideas. IMO there is no shame is simply saying "I don't know" sometimes, particularly in astronomy. The universe is vast and there is still a lot we do not understand about it. </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>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
This Week In Space podcast: Episode 141 —Holiday Special 2024
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Every upcoming 'Star Wars' movie officially announced
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram