The Big Bang Theory -- An Amateur's Theory. Professional Insight Welcome

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>Well, I'm not sure if I need or should start a new thread the explain the cause of this explosion michaelmozina. I've seen other ppl's topics get closed or deleted because there were more then one purtaining to the same subject. However, to explain it a bit further if we say have early particles forming a uranium atom (just as an example) and one neutron enters the nucleus. Then&nbsp;what we see is the nucleus elongate and vibrate causing the particle within pulled far enough apart... then we get you guessed it...&nbsp;nuclear fission. if this process occurred uncontrolled in nature continuously releasing energy in a very small space that is where a repelling energy was also formed. Repelling charged from negitive particles. This could have been the inner working for the formation of Dark Energy in the early chain reaction. In essence I also took this quote from: http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Q6.htm explaining the Bohr Model.</p><p>"Angular momentum of a rotating electric charge is also associated with magnetism: an electron orbiting a nucleus is equivalent (on the average) to an electric current flowing around its orbit, creating a magnetic field which at a distance resembles that of a small magnet at the center, perpendicular to the plane of the orbit. The angular momentum of the motion and the strength of that magnet are proportional. If the atom is placed in a magnetic field, the interaction may change the angular momentum and therefore the energy level--which may change up or down, depending on the direction of the "magnet." </p><p>If we take what I mentioned above and combine it with an electron orbiting a nucleus. Then don't we get an rapidly expanding or exploding electrically charged magnetic field? with a repellant? So I would expect that in the very early universe magnetic fields, Dark Energy, and Gravity&nbsp;did exist. On a much grander scale could this not be the very birth of an unproportionate explosion that contained these three forces? In the atom splitting form an intense amount of heat would have been generated as well due to this same process. Essentially resulting in a enormous atomic bomb. This might be a question for the astrophysists out there. By no means am I a scientists. I could be getting this entirely wrong. But I should have explained earlier that this was the beginning process to my theory to why I believe the universe began in an explosion. I was just so caught up with explaining everything else.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tampaDreamer]

<p>Quick Question.. Would dark matter only act as a counter to 'expansion' but not 'spacetime expansion'?&nbsp; So, in other words, even though dark energy and dark matter are opposites in that one acts in favor of expansion and one in favor of contraction, they are sort of apples and oranges in this regard?</p><p>&nbsp;Ok, another quick question.. If Dark Energy is causing expansion of space in all directions, is it causing expansion of time in all directions as well?&nbsp; Does this mean that my year in the 7th grade is expanding and will eventually encompass an ENTIRE CENTURY of boredom and bullies and acne??</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>There is no such thing as "spacetime" expansion, only the expansion of space, over time. Or more accurately perhaps, <strong>the metric that defines distance changes over time</strong>. Calling it "spacetime" expansion leads to misconceptions about the theory that best describes our observations.</p><p>If you never read anything else on the expansion of the universe, read this:</p><p>Misconceptions about the Big Bang&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>I will definately take a read Speedfreak. I don't think my theory implies that space and time began at the same instant. But like you said "the expansion of space, over time." I know that what I mentioned about about how electron generate a magnetic field are quit minut in scales that we tend to measure here on earth. But in respect to the size of the universe, couldn't we then multiply this to a much grander affect?</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no such thing as "spacetime" expansion, only the expansion of space, over time. Or more accurately perhaps, the metric that defines distance changes over time. Calling it "spacetime" expansion leads to misconceptions about the theory that best describes our observations.If you never read anything else on the expansion of the universe, read this:Misconceptions about the Big Bang&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tampaDreamer]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no such thing as "spacetime" expansion, only the expansion of space, over time. Or more accurately perhaps, the metric that defines distance changes over time. Calling it "spacetime" expansion leads to misconceptions about the theory that best describes our observations.If you never read anything else on the expansion of the universe, read this:Misconceptions about the Big Bang&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />True.. I guess that invalidates my second question.&nbsp; What about my first?&nbsp; (thanks, btw)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no such thing as "spacetime" expansion, only the expansion of space, over time. Or more accurately perhaps, the metric that defines distance changes over time. Calling it "spacetime" expansion leads to misconceptions about the theory that best describes our observations.If you never read anything else on the expansion of the universe, read this:Misconceptions about the Big Bang&nbsp; <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>That is an *excellent* link, particularly as it relates to the topic of expansion.&nbsp; </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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will definately take a read Speedfreak. I don't think my theory implies that space and time began at the same instant. But like you said "the expansion of space, over time." I know that what I mentioned about about how electron generate a magnetic field are quit minut in scales that we tend to measure here on earth. But in respect to the size of the universe, couldn't we then multiply this to a much grander affect? <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p><p>I would respectfully suggest that you try to acquire a deeper understanding of the currently most accepted theory for the Big-Bang, it is known as the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter concordance model. Once you understand what we have so far observed, and how the mainstream scientific theory explains those observations, you will see which of your questions are still relevant. That link I posted above is as good a place to start as any.</p><p>Rather than proposing different models, <em>ask questions</em> about the best model we have so far until you understand how the whole thing is supposed to work. Only then will you be in a position to propose alternatives without people having to explain why the current model works better and whilst you might learn how the mainstream theory works that way, but it would be a piece-meal approach which will make it harder for you to join all the dots together.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If Dark Energy is causing expansion of space in all directions, is it causing expansion of time in all directions as well?</DIV></p><p>Technically, the term "dark energy" is related to the phenomenon of *acceleration* of this expansion process, it is not necessarily related to the cause of the expansion itself. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does this mean that my year in the 7th grade is expanding and will eventually encompass an ENTIRE CENTURY of boredom and bullies and acne?? <br /> Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV></p><p>Nah!&nbsp; &nbsp; Fortunately time will continue to pass on Earth at pretty much the same rate, irrespective of the distance between galaxies. &nbsp; </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>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>As promised Speedfreek, I have read all the information provided in the link you posted. Yes, of course some points about the expansion would be somewhat difficult to understand, but I think I got the gist of it. However I think for some stupid reason that I can prove this theory wrong to some degree. *Awaits the witch hunt*</p><p>To my understanding this theory is greatly accepted because of Einsteins rule of GR. That the universe requires no center point, and no space to expand into. Well, on board the international space station an experiment was done with salt being swirled around inside a baggy. *Sounds kind of lame, but hear me out* In this experiment it was noted that the salt molecules acted very different as they do here on earth. Instead of continuing to swirl around they formed clumps in the vaccuum of space. If my theory uses this experiment forhaving the same affect on the very early atoms, then they too should form clumps, correct? If this is the case then what you begin to have is a substance (lets use uranium for an example) clumping together. Eventually the uranium is going to be so compressed that it will there will no longer be any distance between the particles and thus becoming unstable. I believe it is here that atoms begin to split, and positively charged electrons start a chain reaching. Here combined with my previous post about the factor of electricity in the newly forming electrons, this substance now has nowhere to go but combust outward. When Dark Energy is factored into this equation. I am speaking if you take all the theorized Dark Energy and compress it back into this point of origin... the pressure contained within such a point would be enormous. When the chain reaction occurs, you will see a compressed Dark Energy acting as a super-propellant in the beginning stages of the explosion. This can be proven IF you accept the concept of Dark Energy as the key to acceleration in the universe. This outward shockwave from this explosion could be seen today as the CMBR. *Yes I know, I did contradict my last about the CMBR, but only after ready that article. BTW, thank you Speekfreek* As in any explosion thermal energy is released. As in many experiments of measuring the CMBR, there is a fluctuation in the "thermal temperature". Given the vast distance this shockwave would have traveled, a fluctuation is expected. </p><p>With regards to "Hubbles Law". After reading that article, I'm sorry *waits for the stoning* either a law works, or it doesn't. (With respect to Hubble btw). If my theory is correct, then Dark Energy can also explain how while most galaxies are forced apart (in essence expanding the universe) it also eventually causes two or more galaxies to be pushed together. Whilst repelling galaxies, at some point some will be forced together. Since my theory suggests Dark Energy acts equally on all galaxies, then another force must be present. As two or more galaxies are pushed in the direction of each other because they are repelled away from other galaxies, then the gravity of these two or more galaxies becomes the other force; asisting Dark Energy in pulling these galaxies together. Thus having a galactic merger. In this theory my law would work in all conditions whereas Hubbles Law only works in the "average condition. Again, my apologies for dissing a great man.&nbsp; </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no such thing as "spacetime" expansion, only the expansion of space, over time. Or more accurately perhaps, the metric that defines distance changes over time. Calling it "spacetime" expansion leads to misconceptions about the theory that best describes our observations.If you never read anything else on the expansion of the universe, read this:Misconceptions about the Big Bang&nbsp; <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If this is the case then what you begin to have is a substance (lets use uranium for an example) clumping together. Eventually the uranium is going to be so compressed that it will there will no longer be any distance between the particles and thus becoming unstable.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>It doesn't actually matter what you start with, you know, so you might as well pick hydrogen. Why do you think that it would be unstable simply because all the particles are pressed together? Perhaps you would accept that as you compress everything, it heats up and if you compress it enough atoms cease to be able to exist? If you continue to compress it enough, you might end up with a quark-gluon plasma, like the one theorised just after the big-bang.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe it is here that atoms begin to split, and positively charged electrons start a chain reaching. Here combined with my previous post about the factor of electricity in the newly forming electrons, this substance now has nowhere to go but combust outward.</DIV></p><p>Outward into <em>what?</em>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When Dark Energy is factored into this equation. I am speaking if you take all the theorized Dark Energy and compress it back into this point of origin... the pressure contained within such a point would be enormous. When the chain reaction occurs, you will see a compressed Dark Energy acting as a super-propellant in the beginning stages of the explosion.</DIV></p><p>Now then, dark energy seems to pervade space in such a way that when distances increase, when space expands, the dark energy does not stretch out and become more diffuse, it seems act like either a "background force" in space or a "force" of space itself. As space expands, the amount of dark energy over a given distance does not decrease, it remains constant. This is why it is the "placeholder" for whatever force is responsible for accelerating the rate of expansion. As the clusters of galaxies become more distant from each other and their gravitational attraction diminishes, dark energy seems to start to force them apart faster and faster the more distant they become.</p><p>If dark energy does not "thin out" with expansion, why would it "thicken up" with compression? </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This can be proven IF you accept the concept of Dark Energy as the key to acceleration in the universe.</DIV></p><p>I think you might misunderstand the nature of the accelerated expansion that dark energy is supposed to be causing.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> With regards to "Hubbles Law". After reading that article, I'm sorry *waits for the stoning* either a law works, or it doesn't. (With respect to Hubble btw).</DIV></p><p>Hubble's law works as it is a proportionality constant, i.e it is an average of expansion across distance. Where in that article does it say it doesn't work? Only for galaxies local to us, galaxies that are bound to us by <strong>gravity</strong> and therefore will not be receding due to expansion. It works pretty well apart from that, if you accept that the local gravitational conditions in a region of space will tell the galaxies there how to move and so they may have moved a bit!</p><p>It is an idealised law describing how the expansion of space would affect objects that are essentially "at rest" in relation to the expansion. Of course, nothing is at rest as the gravity in the local area gives each galaxy a peculiar velocity all of its own in relation to the expansion. Gravity also causes galaxies to merge, like our Milky-Way and Andromeda which are moving towards each other with the distinct possiblility that they might merge (we cannot yet tell if Andromeda is going to hit us/we are going to hit Andromeda, or not).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>In many articles I have read say Hubbles Law cannot be applied as it was first meant to all galaxies because you end up with too many errors in the equation. So if what you are saying should be the correct interpretation, then yes... his law is right.</p><p>I do theorize that Dark Energy is working in this manor as it does work to both explain galaxies pushing away from us equally as they do each other, while at the same time being one of the acting forces that cause mergers. But I think what I typed about it might be a bit misleading. The Dark Energy itself is not compressing. It is merely a repelling factor pushing galaxies apart. Since Dark Energy does not diminish over distance of space, it can be fair in saying it will eventually push two or more galaxies in the direction of each other simply by repelling them from other galaxies. From here gravity acts as the extra force required to continue to draw these galaxies closer together into a merger. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>True.. I guess that invalidates my second question.&nbsp; What about my first?&nbsp; (thanks, btw)</p><p>Would dark matter only act as a counter to 'expansion' but not 'spacetime expansion'?&nbsp; So, in other words, even though dark energy and dark matter are opposites in that one acts in favor of expansion and one in favor of contraction, they are sort of apples and oranges in this regard?</p><p><br /> Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV></p><p>Yes, I would say that is as good a description as any, although dark matter seems to be "in favor of contraction" in the same way as any mass does - it is a source of gravity.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In many articles I have read say Hubbles Law cannot be applied as it was first meant to all galaxies because you end up with too many errors in the equation. So if what you are saying should be the correct interpretation, then yes... his law is right. Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>Well you see the thing is that the conditions were changing very rapidly in the early universe and the rate of expansion was decelerating very fast at that time. The rate has been constantly changing ever since the start, so if you draw a graph of the Hubble expansion as we know it today, it is <em>almost</em> straight for relatively close distances (it curves slightly downwards and then upwards again), but it curves up sharply as you approach the most distant galaxies. It cannot be applied "as it was first meant" because Hubble couldn't see that far compared to how far we can see today, and he only saw the expansion whilst the graph was almost straight!</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do grasp how Dark Energy is supposed to work. But I think what I typed about it might be a bit misleading. The Dark Energy itself is not compressing. It is merely a repelling factor pushing galaxies apart. Since Dark Energy does not diminish over distance of space, it can be fair in saying it will eventually push two or more galaxies in the direction of each other simply by repelling them from other galaxies. From here gravity acts as the extra force required to continue to draw these galaxies closer together into a merger. <br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>If you grasped how dark energy was supposed to work, you would not suggest it will eventually push a few galaxies in the direction of each other simply by repelling them from <em>other</em> galaxies. Our observations imply that those <em>other</em> galaxies simply get "pushed" away even further, as does the rest of the universe beyond them!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>I have to say Thank you Speedfreek. That article was indeed a useful tool to help me understand several things. But I do believe the expansion is over time rather then the expansion of space-time. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, I would say that is as good a description as any, although dark matter seems to be "in favor of contraction" in the same way as any mass does - it is a source of gravity.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I did correct myself on my last post Speedfreek. lol, you read it too fast on me. Speaking of the speed of light, lol. But, no, I read the theory of Dark Energy, but I do think this theory would explain why we see what we do in most galaxies moving away from us in equal distance as they do from each other while also forcing other galaxies to merger with the help of gravity. *Retyped my last post at the top of the page to explain* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

In the middle of all this discussion, I was watching a movie about the discovery of exoplanets up to the Gliese system. Then I discovered my autistic son has taken a great interest in astronomy for the first time. He is turning 9 next month. I thought it was pretty cool. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p>You never know, perhaps one day your son will make an important contribution to mankinds knowledge of the universe!</p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /> </p><p>But I think <em>you</em> will have to let go of the notion that dark energy can "push" galaxies towards each other, causing them to merge, even if you say the merger is <em>helped</em> by gravity. The merger is <strong><em>caused</em></strong> by gravity alone, as was well understood before dark energy came in the picture (which was only 10 years ago). Simply put, mass tells space how to curve and space tells mass how to move.</p><p>Wherever there is a large enough space between galaxies for the expansion of space to "beat" the gravitational attraction between those galaxies, the distance between those galaxies increases. If the space between them is not large enough, gravity wins and the distance between them does not increase. If the expansion is accelerating (dark energy) it will only <em>decrease</em> the distance at which expansion beats gravity. The more the expansion accelerates, the more gravitational attraction required to hold things together. </p><p>There are different possible end scenarios for the Big-Bang, one of which is called the Big-Rip. It would require the amount of dark energy in a given area to increase over time, rather than remain constant as it seems to do, so it is an unlikely scenario but by using this extreme example it should show how dark energy is thought to work. Here, as the dark energy increases the rate of expansion there comes a time when galaxies wont hold together any more, then stars and planets and finally atoms themselves are ripped apart!</p><p>The effects of dark energy can be taken, in one sense, to mean that space "itself" expands. Although this is still debated, it is at present a valid interpretation of our observations (It is debated because we do not know the mechanism behind the expansion of the universe and cannot simply assume expansion to be a property of space that it might not have). But if you look at the picture as if space itself expands, that all of space expands, but it only has an effect when the effects of gravity are incredibly weak, you could even envisage the space in your living room expanding, but having no effect on your living room.</p><p>Now if space itself expands <em>everywhere</em>, but has no measurable effect when two galaxies are bound together by gravity, the bricks in your wall are cemented together, or the bonds inside atoms hold them together, how can it possibly <em>ever</em> push one thing towards another?</p><p>If space were to expand such that even the walls and ceiling of your room couldn't hold together, do you think your ceiling would move through the room above you and hit it's ceiling? Or would all ceilings in the building separate by the same amount perhaps? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>Thank you. That would make me possibly the happiest dad ever, lol.&nbsp; </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You never know, perhaps one day your son will make an important contribution to mankinds knowledge of the universe!</DIV> </p><p>Since my last post, I re-read much of that article about the misconceptions of the universes expansion. I also watched many more videos (The Universe Series). lol, I've been home today with my wife sick, and our little guy not feeling good, so I had a bit of free time between today and last night. But I do think you are correct in saying Gravity does cause mergers to occur. Mergers could not happen without Gravity. But if Dark Energy were factored into the equation as being the force to push each galaxy equally apart from another, then eventually many of these galaxies being forced apart must force others in the same direction of another. There are only so many directions galaxies can move if Dark Energy is equal everywhere. We are also unclear to the total affect Dark Matter plays besides holding the outer most stars in a galaxy. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But I think you will have to let go of the notion that dark energy can "push" galaxies towards each other, causing them to merge, even if you say the merger is helped by gravity. The merger is caused by gravity alone, as was well understood before dark energy came in the picture (which was only 10 years ago). </DIV></p><p>Simply put, mass tells space how to curve and space tells mass how to move.Wherever there is a large enough space between galaxies for the expansion of space to "beat" the gravitational attraction between those galaxies, the distance between those galaxies increases. If the space between them is not large enough, gravity wins and the distance between them decreases. If the expansion is accelerating (dark energy) it will only decrease the distance at which expansion beats gravity. The more the expansion accelerates, the more gravitational attraction required to hold things together.</DIV></p><p>I agree, there are many senerios for the end of the universe. But it seems to be quit clear that there is a lot more Dark Energy in the universe then Dark Matter. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are different possible end scenarios for the Big-Bang, one of which is called the Big-Rip. It would require the amount of dark energy in a given area to increase over time, rather than remain constant as it seems to do, so it is an unlikely scenario but by using this extreme example it should show how dark energy is thought to work. Here, as the dark energy increases the rate of expansion there comes a time when galaxies wont hold together any more, then stars and planets and finally atoms themselves are ripped apart! The effects of dark energy can be taken, in one sense, to mean that space "itself" expands. Although this is still debated, it is at present a valid interpretation of our observations (It is debated because we do not know the mechanism behind the expansion of the universe and cannot simply assume expansion to be a property of space that it might not have). But if you look at the picture as if space itself expands, that all of space expands, but it only has an effect when the effects of gravity are incredibly weak, you could even envisage the space in your living room expanding, but having no effect on your living room.Now if space itself expands everywhere, but has no measurable effect when two galaxies are bound together by gravity, the bricks in your wall are cemented together, or the bonds inside atoms hold them together, how can it possibly ever push one thing towards another?If space were to expand such that even the walls and ceiling of your room couldn't hold together, do you think your ceiling would move through the room above you and hit it's ceiling? Or would all ceilings in the building separate by the same amount perhaps? <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But if Dark Energy were factored into the equation as being the force to push each galaxy equally apart from another, then eventually many of these galaxies being forced apart must force others in the same direction of another. There are only so many directions galaxies can move if Dark Energy is equal everywhere.<br /> Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>This is the heart of the matter. It seems to me that you are still thinking in terms of those galaxies being pushed <strong>through</strong> space by the expansion of space, rather than those galaxies all essentially being "at rest" in relation to the space that expands around them, changing the measure of distance between the galaxies without either of the galaxies actually moving through space.</p><p>A simple analogy might help here - raisin bread!</p><p>You have your dough, with your raisins distributed throughout it as evenly as you can. Now what happens when you cook the dough? The dough expands, increasing the distance between each raisin, but the raisins are not moving through the dough. If the dough is evenly cooked, all raisins end up further away from each other than before - no raisin gets closer to another raisin as the dough is expanding evenly between all of them!</p><p>So now imagine our observable universe is like the inside of that raisin bread, we have no idea where the edge of the loaf is - we have no way to even know if the loaf has an edge - it might go on forever! All we know is that all we can see are raisins and dough and the raisins get more distant from their neighbouring raisins over time. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>LMAO, rasin bread, huh. You must've read that as well. I know what the current theory is. The analogy I'm giving the universe is that the dough is Dark Energy rather then space itself that keeps the galaxies continuously accelerating apart.What I am saying space is it's own entity. I guess the best way to explain it is that purhaps space itselfis much larger then the universe. The Big Bang would be like dropping a pebble into a pool of water. The ripples on the water represent what affect the Big Bang had on space. In essence not accelerating the later forming galaxies beyond the speed of light, but rather changing <u>how</u> they moved through space. It is Dark Energy that continues to push these galaxies apart evenly throughout space. We still could only see out to the CMBR because it IS the background radiation from the Big Bang or in my explanation, the shockwave from an explosive event. The shockwave would not have been affected as much by this rippling of space, but rather is ahead of it. It's like looking at a wave appoaching a beach. When it's calm the waves are not that far from the ocean floor. But when a big wave comes in, it creates a greater distance between the ocean floor and the surface. Hence the rippling affect that could very well have caused these vast distances to occur. Now imagine the wave having moved outward in all directions rather then just across the surface of the ocean. Do you see what I'm getting at? Space outside the shockwave (CMBR) could very well remain undisturbed, and untouched by the Big Bang. To us here, with Dark Energy equally pushing the galaxies apart, and working with gravity to merge others we would see the affects we see today. I saw the 3D model of the CMBR by WMAP. This really got me thinking more that the changes in temperature could in fact represent how this shockwave moved through space, and not expanded as part of it. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is the heart of the matter. It seems to me that you are still thinking in terms of those galaxies being pushed through space by the expansion of space, rather than those galaxies all essentially being "at rest" in relation to the space that expands around them, changing the measure of distance between the galaxies without either of the galaxies actually moving through space.A simple analogy might help here - raisin bread!You have your dough, with your raisins distributed throughout it as evenly as you can. Now what happens when you cook the dough? The dough expands, increasing the distance between each raisin, but the raisins are not moving through the dough. If the dough is evenly cooked, all raisins end up further away from each other than before - no raisin gets closer to another raisin as the dough is expanding evenly between all of them!So now imagine our observable universe is like the inside of that raisin bread, we have no idea where the edge of the loaf is - we have no way to even know if the loaf has an edge - it might go on forever! All we know is that all we can see are raisins and dough and the raisins get more distant from their neighbouring raisins over time. <br /> Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>I couldn't take it any more. I have corrected the thread title. I will leave the incorrect spelling in the thread....</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></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126924.600-magnetic-fossils-may-come-from-big-bang.html</p><p>I thought you might enjoy this article by the way. </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>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by xXTheOneRavenXx</DIV></p><p>You will have to forgive me, for I cannot yet understand your model well enough to see how it matches our observations.</p><p>How come the CMBR is coming in at us from all directions with only the tiniest fluctuations in temperature? How did your "returning" shockwave hit us evenly from all directions? Does the temperature of the shockwave decrease over time? Are we at the epicentre? </p><p>How can an explosion with an epicentre cause even expansion throughout?</p><p>How do distant galaxies move as if they are receding at multiples of the speed of light?</p><p>If you understand the mainstream theory, presumably you understand the implications of Special and General Relativity too? How does your model reconcile itself with SR and GR?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>Thank you very much MeteorWayne. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I couldn't take it any more. I have corrected the thread title. I will leave the incorrect spelling in the thread.... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

<p>How interesting. I believe I mentioned as part of my theory about early magnetic waves. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126924.600-magnetic-fossils-may-come-from-big-bang.htmlI thought you might enjoy this article by the way. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>