the expanding universe

ejohns0338 · Jul 11, 2006

If it is known that the universe is expanding (my assumption is that we can measure distances from other heavenly bodies to get this data), then what direction is the earth going? Probably more accurate is which direction is our sun going? My follow up to that is: If we can figure out which direction we are expanding outward, can we then look in the exact opposite direction to begin looking for our origins? I understand that there is no "universal north pole" to reference to say we are headed SE or NNW. The answer I'm looking for is not the name of the direction we're moving but rather: Can we measure that we are expanding outward? Can we look at the exact opposite direction and call that the point at where our universe began? Thanks for your time and consideration. respectfully, Eric

enigma10 · Jul 11, 2006

It's all going left. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

derekmcd · Jul 11, 2006

To use the old cliche, "It's all relative". From our relative point of view, we are the center of the universe and everthing else is expanding away from us (not counding local objects). Every point in the universe has this same point of view. A powerful enough telescope looking in any direction could see "the beginning". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

ejohns0338 · Jul 11, 2006

to us small humans, I agree, it's all relative. However, we are not the center of the universe and if we can calculate the distance to alpha centuri and other far away objects then, why couldn't we calculate the trajectory of expansion by comparing the results of those calculations over a period of time? I understand your point but cannot comprehend it. How can the universe be expanding relatively? Am I to understand that means that from where I sit in my chair the universe is expanding outward from and I could measure distances to far off objects and you, potentially hundreds of miles away, could do the exact same thing at the exact same time and our measurements would not concur (not accounting for the actual distance we are apart of course but rather the outward expanding trajectories would be off by degrees, however small). To make my example clear. Say we are on Earth and we conclude that every far away object is moving away from us, object A is moving directly north from our perspective using our axis as the key. Object B is moving north but is farther away than Object A. Now if you measure from Object B that the Earth is moving away and so is Object A, then the calculation from Earth must be incorrect because we think Object A is traveling north from our perspective, from theirs it must be traveling south along that key. If I'm missing something please let me know, but I think that this one is not as easy as it's all relative unless there are some physics that exist to corroborate that conclusion.

derekmcd · Jul 11, 2006

You have to look at it on a much grander scale. Alpha Centauri is still a local object. On a scale of billions of light years, every galaxy is moving away from us at an accelerated pace. These galaxies using the same grand scales would make the same observation. I'm sure you are familiar with the expanding balloon analogy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

CalliArcale · Jul 11, 2006

The key to understanding the theory is that once upon a time (so goes the theory), all matter was compressed down into a single point -- or at least into a space so tiny it might as well be called a point. Something happened to cause this point to explode. It is still expanding today. Each point is getting further and further away from all the others. Since it was just a point in the beginning, every point now was once at the center -- and still is, in a sense. This doesn't make sense at first. It kind of comes from two things: 1) the observed fact that no matter which direction we look, we see distant objects at the same rate, suggesting that we are at the center, and 2) a general feeling that it would be a shocking and highly unlikely coincidence if we really were at the center. It may or may not be correct, but it's a compelling explanation for what is observed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

alkalin · Jul 11, 2006

The universe is ‘assumed’ to be expanding based on red shifted light we see on very distant objects, and this assumption is based on Doppler phenomena. There are other reasons now known for light to shift to the red. A recent study done at Johns Hopkins refutes the notion completely that the universe is thirteen point seven billion years old. This is a failure of the expansion (Doppler) notions of big bang. Hears why. If we see a number of galaxies out there at 11 or 12 billion years ago that are not young blue galaxies as they are suppose to be, but are older, very large and more yellowish ones that were at least 12 billion years old when light left them, then after traveling another 12 billion years to get here, that amounts to a minimum of 24 billion years age for the universe. This factor is an outright embarrassment for me to now associate with big bang theory until this problem is resolved. My advice is study this topic some more so that your question is more accurate. I feel you’re an intelligent person but do not have much savvy in this area. But keep looking for answers in any way you can. I hope this helps.

harmonicaman · Jul 11, 2006

Ejohns0338 - I have to agree with member Derekmcd. Not only does every point in the universe see itself, from its relative perspective, as the center of the universe (1.); but it also observes itself to be the oldest point in the entire universe(2.). You also share the perspective of being located at the very edge of the universe. The edge of the universe is right in front of your nose at "c" (the speed of light); you can never reach the mythical edge, but it's right there at "c" and forever just out of your reach. WHY IS THIS SO? The reason that every point in the universe shares the same relative perspectives as to their place in the universe is related to the "Classic" Big Bang cosmological theory of our origin. The universe started life as a singularity; which is an infinitesimally tiny point in time and space. Within a singularity, every point is both the center and the edge of the singularity. Our universe is simply the expansion of time and the creation of space occurring entirely within a singularity! Our universe today still maintains many of the attributes of the singularity within which we are continuously expanding. Just like in a singularity, every point in the universe observes itself to be the center and edge of the universe. The rules of the singularity still prevail in our infinitely expanding universe! 1. Try this simple demonstration which graphically illustrates how every point in the universe observes itself as being located at the very center of the universe. 2. Every point in the universe shares the same perspective of viewing back in time in every direction they look; this simple thought experiment demonstrates how every point can see themselves as being the old

ejohns0338 · Jul 11, 2006

Ok I understand the overlay. So my conclusion is this, any calculation, measurement, or amount of data collected from our relative perspective is a known quantity that can be utilized by mathematicians and scientists here. Everywhere else in the singularity our data would be analyzed by them and they would view our data as incorrect. Likewise, their data to us would be incorrect. edit: yes I am a neophyte with astronomy and physics. I don't mind being wrong about this stuff I have an open mind and am actually try to learn.

harmonicaman · Jul 11, 2006

Yeah, it's kind of like calling somebody in California from New York at 8:00 AM in the morning. They'll swear it's still only 5:00 AM! In the same way, all measurements are relative to your perspective... ...and something that is wrong here might actually be correct when viewed from a different perspective! BTW -- This view of the universe might not even be entirely correct; but it's the best that science has been able to come up with, and it's constantly being refined and improved upon as we learn more about the world around us.

ejohns0338 · Jul 12, 2006

Thank you. That was the conclusion I was hoping for. It opens so many possibilities for me.

enigma10 · Jul 12, 2006

With time defined by units of measure created by man, time would still be time, no matter how you measure it. An example would be even though one person swears its 5 am, though its 8 am in New York, at the exact point in time, its still the same time, just different geographical positions on earth. Time -wise, the earth is in the same place, relative to the sun,relative to the planets and moons,relative to the stars, for both people in different locations. Even though there may be a mild variation when travelling between these points of refference, the variation is a constant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan </div>

siarad · Jul 12, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I understand that there is no "universal north pole"<hr /></blockquote> You hit it right there but mistakenly went on to say "to reference to say we are headed SE or NNW". There's no direction from there but South just as when we look out the only direction is back in time.

alkalin · Jul 13, 2006

Here’s another study to consider. A while back was done a computer analysis on local galaxies and their motions, about 300 of them if I recall, but the computer analysis showed no indication that we are expanding locally. Often big banger supporters get carried away with the balloon model as though it applies locally, which it does not. It worries me that they wish somehow all that myth of expansion is true.

lukman · Oct 20, 2006

Using big bang, hard to understand if universe is expanding in accelerating speed, if they are expanding, and moving away to each other, why andromeda is moving at 1million km/h toward Milky Way, and why there are galaxies so far away which means that the time for us to reach them = c * age of universe. My theory is that the big bang is creating space, spitting unknown stuff into space randomly, after that the stuff it self made smaller bang and galaxies are created. Those things that made galaxies out of empty space are something that not within our understanding right now. At least i get the idea why galaxies still colliding and why we can figure out the origin place of big bang. For me, this 3D expanation is easier to comphrehend. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

newtonian · Oct 20, 2006

lukman - Space is apparently expanding - our universe is stetching out like a fine gauze with its threads and filaments. However, some gravitational bonds - compare filaments - do break and recoil in that gauzelike fabric of space. Our local area is recoiling from a gravitational tug of war involving two attractors. Currently we and thousands of other galaxies are on a sort of river in space heading for the great attractor. This is a very large local area btw - it does involve a significant portion of the observable universe - not tiny like earth is to the Milky Way. Nonetheless, the observable universe as a whole is stretching out or expanding. Note, btw, that galaxies are not made out of empty space. It is, rather, a result in part of the conversion of energy into matter after the big bang. Space, btw, is not necessarily empty. Would you consider the presence of either dark energy or dark matter or other dimensions as in String theory or... as present in empty space?

oldschoolmojo · Mar 21, 2007

My two cents on the subject: Further understanding of the Cosmic Microwave Background radation (CMB) will result in a shattering of the old paradigm of a non-localized Universe. Besides that, we can clearly see relativistic Euclidian topography all around us and also we infer that the Balloon analogy *deflates as soon as anyone points out there is a center of expansion relative to the balloon's expanding event horizon. What can be inferred from CMB studies is that all of this radiation is polarized. This anisotropy indicates a magnetized plasma with all of the constituent magnetic structures. Charged particles seek field lines to conduct or discharge upon. Field lines are the fingerprint of magnetic scalar fields lending rise to a mappable discharge flow. Logically where there is a capacitating field there is typically a central catalytic capacitor. The question upon the table concerns whether there is a Universal Topography which lends itself to mapping a Universal North relative to our position in the system. The answer seems to be yes, that there is a Universal coordinate system. Besides the clues of Polarized light, there is the fact that within the CMB map we find clear evidence of magnetic poles on a monumental Universal scale. There are two such pole-systems to be studied, one of which is a quadrupole. To explain further, our sun is seen as being mainly a dipole but there are complex magnetic structures which defy this simplistic understanding. At any given time there are a number of different pole shapes. However, there is always a center to this gravity well. The Solar system and the Galaxy have gravitational centers and mappable magnetic heirarchy's. The Universe is the same. For point of reference, every 11 years our sun's quadrupole prominates over the other infolded structures, with two north poles where north and south lay now, and two south poles located in the equator. So in

alokmohan · Mar 23, 2007

Our Galaxy seems to be far enough away from the Universal quadrupole center of gravity that we can be considered to be in a state of harmonic equilibrium. We may be in a sort of Universal life zone where conditions are optimal for survival of this postulated periodic gravitational collapse of a massive central Universal Black Hole. No such center odf gravity.

oldschoolmojo · May 17, 2007

"No such center odf gravity." Sure there is. The CMB pictures show a polarized magnetism. There is to my knowledge no such thing as diffuse magnetism, and this information is already being used to map out the magnetic lay lines of our Universe. But that is of secondary importance to the point of fact you seem to be disregarding-- the center of our Universe currently has a monopole and a quadrupole system, just as Sol does every 11 years. And just as the earth is in the Solar plane, once an accretion disc or protoplanetary disc, so too can we clearly see that our Galaxy is within the same disc structure of the Universe. We can even get a rough position relative to the Universal center, which makes this a very large centrifuge, which gives our Universe a specific center of gravity. I may not be the best at explaining these things, but I think that it is fairly easy to understand that our Universe isn't ever-expanding, and that it does have a distinct shape as well as an exact center.

ajna · May 18, 2007

"A powerful enough telescope looking in any direction could see "the beginning". " Sorry to burst the bubble but this isn't true. Because the more distant parts of the universe are receding faster than light we will never be able to see them. There is a bubble of viewable distance around every vantage point in the universe that expands but not as fast as the space beyond it. If you were inside a torus there would be no centre, except of course the one outside of spacetime in the centre of the ring. Maybe the universe is a multi-creative event, and therefore there is no centre??

SpeedFreek · May 18, 2007

Have you ever heard of the concept of manifolds, or more precisely a four dimensional manifold that is both finite and boundless? In this context though, boundless doesn't mean it goes on forever. It means it has no edge, but in a different way. A four dimensional manifold can (and I'm trying to use words here when only maths will do!) fold or curve back on itself dimensionally, in a manner that means it has no edge. If it is static, old enough and light has had time to propagate throughout it, (which our universe isn't!), you would see the same region of space when looking in opposite directions (but you likely wouldn't recognise it as such as you would be seeing the same region of space from different directions and during different epochs, so it may not look anything like its "twin" in the opposite direction). Of course, if the manifold is expanding then you may never see any evidence of the same space in different directions. Einstein considered that space might be finite but boundless, in this manner. General relativity models the universe as a four dimensional manifold and it seems a pretty good analogy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

ajna · May 18, 2007

Is a torus a possible 4D manifold of the type you described speedfreak? And is it meaningful to describe a shape given there is nothing definable outside of the universe to compare it? The Calabi-Yau shapes are possibilities for strings, is there a comparable analogy to the possible shapes of the universe? Thanks.

SpeedFreek · May 19, 2007

Interestingly, a torus (or a sphere) is only a 2-dimensional manifold (it is the surface we are considering with these models)! An example of a 1 dimensional manifold is a circle. Anywhere on that circle, wherever you are your local neighbourhood would look like a line. The manifold has one more dimension than is known of from within. Inhabitants of a 1D manifold universe would only be able to move in 1 dimension (along the line), and would never find an edge or in this case, the end of the line! They cannot tell that their universe is in fact a 2 dimensional object - a circle. In a 2D manifold (the surface of a sphere or torus), wherever you are, your neighbourhood would look like a disc. However far you travelled you would never reach the end. You can only move in 2 dimensions (across the surface) and wouldn't know that you were actually on a 3 dimensional object, as you can only perceive 2 dimensions (being 2 dimensional yourself). The manifold has one more dimension than you. Now it gets complicated. In a 3D manifold, your neighbourhood looks like a 3D surface. An example of a 3-manifold is a 4 dimensional sphere (not something easily visualised)! 4 dimensional objects are odd, and counter intuitive. An example of a simple 4 dimensional object is a 4D cube. Imagine a cube, then imagine a smaller cube inside it (think in wireframe!). Now join the corners of the inner cube to the outer cube. Now comes the hard part. All the lines are the same length! Ouch! Now we need to take the next step and visualise a 4 dimensional manifold, where every point has a neighbourhood that is 4 dimensional (represented as space-time in our universe). The manifold itself has one more dimension than we can know of.... see where this is going? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

oldschoolmojo · May 19, 2007

"Because the more distant parts of the universe are receding faster than light we will never be able to see them. There is a bubble of viewable distance around every vantage point in the universe that expands but not as fast as the space beyond it." IRAS and COBE have already shown us a distinct event horizon to the expanding Universe. Our ability to see the farthest extremes of the Universe is relative to light, yes, because we are seeing reflections or emenations of photons when we look outwards into space. But as telescopy gets more and more powerful we are seeing farther away in more or less real time, not just backwards. To clarify, when seen through a powerful telescope, the albedo of the moon combined with the speed of light is less important because, with the proper scope we can zero in on a single inch of moon-dust and cut down the reflection time in an exponential inverse to the power of the scope. The premise that we will never be able to definitively see to the outer extremes is part of the flawed, ever expanding or boundless Universe models. If you have ever used an electric razor to shave a beard, and then thrown the clippings in a toilet, you will see trappings (pun-alert) of a superior model. Representing Galaxies, the clippings are mostly forced away from each other due to their negative electrical charge. Dumped into a single mass, they expand in all directions until they more or less uniformly cover the surface of the water. Right now we are seeing a slight expansion in the speed of receeding Galaxies. The flawed model postulates that this will continue unabated forever. The superior model recognizes that the Galaxies are expanding into a scalar field, represented by the interior of the toilet bowl and edified by the IRAS and COBE witnessed event horizon of the Universe. This horizon isn't the edge of an expansion wave but the point where the matter within is bunching up against the scalar field in a sort of shock w

SpeedFreek · May 19, 2007

"CMB data shows a distinct multi-pole magnetic structure to our Universe. This system has an exact center. We can see our position relative to this center and understand we are in a Universal accretion disc. While worthy, all non-centralized theories are hereby dead and defunct, irregardless of when this death is accepted by the masses." I would be interested to see your sources for this "fact". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

the expanding universe

ejohns0338

Guest

enigma10

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

ejohns0338

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

alkalin

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

ejohns0338

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

ejohns0338

Guest

enigma10

Guest

siarad

Guest

alkalin

Guest

lukman

Guest

newtonian

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

ajna

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

ajna

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page