the expanding universe

ajna · Aug 30, 2007

OldSchool: "There are uncountable examples of Blue-Shift wherein objects are moving towards us or towards each other, so many so in fact that the term "Great Attractors" has been coined to explain the phenomenon. The fact that so many Galaxies are moving towards each other in immensely long filiments, clusters and groupings, also gave birth to the term of "Great Walls" of Galaxies. " That's it man, that's the dark energy marker. Remember putting chips/crisp bags in the oven and making them shrink? That is how behind the scenes dimensional setups affect our spacetime and the 'impossible physics' we see - we are not looking through a constant medium. I reckon when we can detect dark energy directly we will see strings and sheets (like mojo said) all feeding to the great magnetic multipole in the sky, if the said multipole model becomes standard, and along these networks we will see the galaxies like dew drops on a spider's web.

ajna · Aug 30, 2007

Speedfreak: "But if you carried on in a straight line you might find that the "apparent" edge stays the same distance from you, and previously unseen stars are coming into view in front, whilst stars you have passed are disappearing behind, until you find yourself heading back towards where you started from the other direction! " I suppose our ideas can meld, which mean you and oldschool aren't really at odds

Following from the spider web analogy, if its built in a corner then its not going to move wrt what hold it, but I can see it expanding inwards like you say. As the spider gets to the edge, there is no more web so it has to keep trolling the edge in an ever-deepening spacetime distortion (I read that theory somewhere, possibly a Brian Greene book). Oldschool's multipoles would also obviously be represented, and the dark energy as the web structure. Now imagine that the spider has no way of sensing the web that is expanding inwards, and you have our universe.

oldschoolmojo · Aug 30, 2007

"I suppose our ideas can meld, which mean you and oldschool aren't really at odds <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Following from the spider web analogy, if its built in a corner then its not going to move wrt what hold it, but I can see it expanding inwards like you say. As the spider gets to the edge, there is no more web so it has to keep trolling the edge in an ever-deepening spacetime distortion (I read that theory somewhere, possibly a Brian Greene book). "Oldschool's multipoles would also obviously be represented, and the dark energy as the web structure. Now imagine that the spider has no way of sensing the web that is expanding inwards, and you have our universe." I like Wormhole Theory and have studied it extensively. It has no place in this discussion except as an interesting footnote to an antiquated set of postulates. You must understand please that BB Theory has no room for a Wormhole which extends along the entire event-horizon and is always leading to the direct opposite side of the Universe. That is Science-Fiction and you cannot supply one single example in all of nature to validate such imaginative rationial. Furthermore, you guys should obviously devote some more time to the study of manifolds and Mobius Strips/Loops. Even these typically have distinct edges which can be exited and entered and there is no scientific foundation to suggest you would automatically get stuck in a loop where your ship exited one side only to enter the direct opposite side. The only way to stay 'in-the-loop' so to speak is to travel inside of it along its center, which, folding back on itself, would be an unending tunnel. If you found the side of the tunnel you could simply leave the center and exit the problem. I would also suggest brushing up on BB Theory, which always has a massive explosion beginning from a primordial seed or plasma singularity. To help yourselves understand this better you should most definitely s

SpeedFreek · Aug 30, 2007

You are suggesting then, that the vacuum of space existed before the big-bang, and that the big-bang exploded into it. You also suggest that space is not expanding. You say the the big-bang is always described as an explosion, I say it has only ever been described as an explosion in error (as has been stated many, many times, by many, many most respected scientists over the years). I will continue to ascribe a higher probability of their version being the correct one than yours, until further evidence can persuade me otherwise. Now, if I could be bothered I could find loads of links to scientific papers or articles to back up my version as it is the mainstream view (that the big-bang is not describing an explosion; that it happened "everywhere at once"; that space can expand, shrink and curve without being embedded in a higher-dimensional space; that the universe could be self-contained; that it needs neither a centre to expand away from nor empty space on the outside to expand into; that what we might think of as a straight line through space, might actually be a curve in relation to the overall geometry of the universe, etc etc). Now, I admit that the idea that space folds back on itself on the grand scale so a straight line ends up where it started is nothing more than the remotest possibility, but it is indeed a possibility (or more specifically, we have only a remote possibility of ever finding out one way or another!) These are theories about the whole universe, not just our observable universe, and neither COBE nor IRAS have proved anything either way as to whether the whole universe has an edge or not. All our observations can do is tell us about our observable universe. When we say the universe was once the size of a grapefruit we are only ever referring to our observable universe. When that was the size of a grapefruit, the whole universe could have al <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

alokmohan · Sep 1, 2007

Nothing existed before big bang as spacetime was born together.

oldschoolmojo · Sep 2, 2007

"So...Are you saying is that the earth is the center of the universe, or what?" Nope. I'm saying that the curvature of the Universe causes the light inside to behave like a concave lens. This also polarizes the light, causing it to appear to stretch away from you and skewing the image like the so-called "Fingers of God", an illusion causing Galaxies to appear to line up in immense filiments which point directly at the earth. The concave lensing effect will slow down and scatter the light, which has the effect of causing the illusion that the farther away we look the faster the Universe is expanding. This is why so-called Arp Quasars associated with nearby Galaxies have the illusion of appearing at the farthest edges of the Universe. The effect is accumulative. We can hypothetically assign one Concave Effect or CE to each light year, so when we look 13.7 billion LY's away this is like looking through 13.7 billion convex lenses. This is why the Galaxies farthest away from us to be moving away from us at Faster Than Light (FTL) speeds, which is impossible on a number of fronts, not in the least that FTL particles are moving backwards in time and we can't seem them anyway. In short, unless you are on a planet at the edge of the Universe, no matter where you look it will appear that your planet is at the exact center of the Universe.

oldschoolmojo · Sep 2, 2007

"Nothing existed before big bang as spacetime was born together." The Augustinian Era isn't even a tautology; you might as well believe in miracles. All singularities come from the collapse of a nebulous volume of gaseous matter, and our Universe is no different. If you read more closely you should notice I am saying that while the time relative to the space created post BB was manifested in lockstep with the BB explosion, a space had to exist for this to happen within. The inside of the Universe is always going to be relative to the outside. And the outside wouldn't be some exotic higher or lower dimension; it is just as 3-dimensional as the inside of the Universal event-horizon. The only difference I am saying is the outside of our Universal EH is filled with what I am calling Hawking Radiation, while the inside of course is filled with the particles which can only evolve from the explosion of the proto Universal singularity.

kyle_baron · Sep 2, 2007

I'm saying that the curvature of the Universe causes the light inside to behave like a convex lens. This also polarizes the light, causing it to appear to stretch away from you and skewing the image like the so-called "Fingers of God", an illusion causing Galaxies to appear to line up in immense filiments which point directly at the earth. The convex lensing effect will slow down and scatter the light, which has the effect of causing the illusion that the farther away we look the faster the Universe is expanding. This is why so-called Arp Quasars associated with nearby Galaxies have the illusion of appearing at the farthest edges of the Universe. I like your idea. It's creative, outside the box, and plausible! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> The curvature (of the universe), being the gravity of the visible, and dark matter? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

oldschoolmojo · Sep 2, 2007

"I like your idea. It's creative, outside the box, and plausible! "The curvature (of the universe), being the gravity of the visible, and dark matter?" The curvature being the inside edge of the expanded balloon like Universe. Dark Matter has nothing to do with it as far as I can see. I have erroneously said "convex". I should have said _concave_ and am hereafter editing my posts to read this. The curve of the inside event-horizon is cave like, causing the light inside to curve in like-fashion, like a mirror or the concave lens of an eyeglass.

kyle_baron · Sep 3, 2007

The curvature being the inside edge of the expanded balloon like Universe. Certainly, you're not talking about a hard (gravitationaly) curved edge. That's gravitational lensing. I can swallow a multi edge concept (peeling the layers off an onion) to the gravity with in the universe. The light following multiple curved paths as an explanation for the redshift of an object. Dark Matter has nothing to do with it as far as I can see. You're right, you can't see it (pun intended). But I would reconsider, since the amount of visible matter is negligible, compared to the amount of dark matter. Dark matter surrounds visible matter (galaxies) and out numbers visible matter by a 23% to 4% margin. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

oldschoolmojo · Sep 4, 2007

"(Don't worry, I understand that your view is that everything I have said in this post will turn out to be false.)" Not so. We agree on quite a few points and I really do appreciate you sharing your thoughts as well as challenging my hypotheses. You have been very gracious. The more I have to explain these things the less repetative and more refined the explanation gets. Let me see with this very post if I can supply a few definitive links so you can better see what I am suggesting. Firstly, I wanted to give your mostly summary position in whole without responding in particular. Instead, the whole post will show any counter-positions: "To all intents and purposes, all gravity bound systems are at rest in relation to the expansion of the space, and it is the expansion of space that causes the distance between non gravity bound systems to increase over time. Clusters of galaxies interact gravitationally, sometimes with other clusters of galaxies, but where there is no gravitationally bound system, space expands. This is the process that is increasing the size of our observable universe, this "metric" expansion (or more accurately, whatever it is that causes the expansion - but it doesn't seem to be the inertial motion of an explosion). Non gravitationally bound systems are not moving apart due to inertia, but due to the expansion. This is how distant galaxies can recede from us at speed that are apparently faster than light. They aren't violating any laws, as they are not moving at that speed due to inertia. This is the common consensus in cosmology at the moment." That was good, although you will see that it may only be the consensus of the common. People who win Nobel prizes and otherwise really push the sciences are rarely common, nor are they in the comfy "mainstream" . However, that being said, I want you to familiarize yourself with how fickle th

SpeedFreek · Sep 4, 2007

Red on grey sure makes the eyes hurt. Ã²Â¿Ã“ Seeing as you are using those kinds of article, check out this article from SciAm, which had to be printed due to the types of views expressed at some of your links. Misconceptions about the Big Bang (5 pages) If you want a more formal version, try here: Expanding Confusion: Common Misconceptions of Cosmological Horizons and the Superluminal Expansion of the Universe Here are a few snippets: Renowned physicists, authors of astronomy textbooks and prominent popularizers of science have made incorrect, misleading or easily misinterpreted statements about the expansion of the universe. Because expansion is the basis of the big bang model, these misunderstandings are fundamental. Expansion is a beguilingly simple idea, but what exactly does it mean to say the universe is expanding? What does it expand into? Astronomers casually say that distant galaxies are "receding" or "moving away" from us, but the galaxies are not traveling through space away from us. They are not fragments of a big bang bomb. Instead the space between the galaxies and us is expanding. Individual galaxies move around at random within clusters, but the clusters of galaxies are essentially at rest. The term "at rest" can be defined rigorously. The microwave background radiation fills the universe and defines a universal reference frame, analogous to the rubber of the balloon, with respect to which motion can be measured. (your monopole "centre" might be inferred from this, I grant you, although I still say such a centre would have little to do with the "centre of expansion" or "position of the big bang") One might conclude that the expansion of o <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

oldschoolmojo · Sep 4, 2007

"Red on grey sure makes the eyes hurt. Ã²Â¿Ã“" Yes. Sorry. I wish I had chosen another way to highlight your text without embedding it. I've never really used UBB or HTML code before. Last time I was coding it was C+. "The views in that article reflected the current best model in cosmology at the time." A subjective stance relative to ones viewpoint. "I don't think we can call anything outside of what is in the link I posted above the mainstream view in cosmology." "I may look into other parts of your post in more detail later" You should probably do that first to see how I understand your mainstream much better than you think. The main _stream_ is a flood of fickle fluvial flux. Think outside of the box, for the sake of winnowing the grain of veracity from the chaffe of venality.

MeteorWayne · Sep 4, 2007

What part of red on grey is hard to read did you not understand? Please pick a different color <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

dragon04 · Sep 4, 2007

Owing to the curvature of space-time, and the distinct possibility that a "balloon" is the wrong shape to depict, unless we were very near "the edge" or the "center" of the Universe, it would be almost impossible to determine a point of origin. Was the singularity that created the Big Bang "static", or was it spinning? Furthermore, if it was spinning, did it spin on a constant axis, or was it more like Mars, whose axis is not stable? That leads me to a question about the theoretical singularity that was at the heart of the BB and black holes, but that's another topic entirely, I suppose. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

SpeedFreek · Sep 5, 2007

Sorry, this is all too much for me! I simply can't be bothered to sift through all that excess information. I will happily wait for science to catch up with you, and in the meantime I will continue to answer questions using the current FRW metric, Lambda-CDM model until a better model comes along. There are lots of changes that will occur in cosmology, but nothing has been settled either way yet, and until it is, I will stick with the model that still fits best to our observations. I don't think your model fits any better, to be honest. I would suggest you take your ideas to BAUT, where there are many experts in these fields, and see how they go down there - but I can guarantee that your ideas will end up in the "against the mainstream" section. EDIT - please disregard the above, normal service has resumed further on!/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

oldschoolmojo · Sep 5, 2007

"Sorry, this is all too much for me! I simply can't be bothered to sift through all that excess information." Copout! "I will stick with the model that still fits best to our observations." If you could be bothered to read the post, you would see that when you use words like "we" and "our" you are not representing the original authors of the Big Bang model. "I don't think your model fits any better, to be honest." How would you know? You can't even be bothered to read the model's proofs before passing judgement, which is sheer lazyness. I am sorry for the post-length, but I decided there are several reasons why it would be better not to split up Godzilla. I am thankful for your questions and observations however. You have been very gracious and polite throughout the exchange of ideas, which I assume is over since you are unwilling to be so kind as to take the time to consider them before first passing judgement. I would understand if you thought they were based entirely upon unwarrented speculation, but since you are admitting a disregard for my attempt at substantiation, I will take the high road on this one. "If we listened to our intellect, we'd never have a love affair. We'd never have a friendship. We'd never go into business because we'd be cynical. You've got to jump off cliffs all the time and build your wings on the way down." (Ray Bradbury)

SpeedFreek · Sep 5, 2007

Ok, I was just tired when I posted before, sorry about that. I shouldn't have replied till I was ready. "I have to admit you are correct. There is no proof, only a suggestion. Both observations were dubbed by their teams as the "search for the light at the edge of the Universe". The findings were also presented in numerous books as the discovered light at the "edge of the Universe", (see Richard Preston, "First Light: The Search for the Edge of the Universe", Morgan Entrekin/Atlantic Monthly, 1988). The COBE team didn't help matters when in 1992 they announced they had discovered "ripples at the edge of the Universe" . However, since IRAS and COBE couldn't peer beyond the 300,000 to 380,000 year veil, these observations were really concerned with only around 90% of the Universe." /i> But this reply of yours, and the "edgeofuniverse" link you posted for this, are still only referring to our observable universe, which looks roughly spherical with us in the centre of it. And at the furthest distance we see in each direction are the echoes of the big-bang. But this little "bubble" of ours is only our observable universe, which may constitute who knows what proportion of the whole universe. If our observable universe has an edge, that has no bearing on the shape of the whole universe, which might for all we know go on forever. The shape of our observable universe is roughly spherical, and this is due to the limit of time. Modern cosmology has little idea about the size or shape of the whole universe in general. COBE and IRAS et al can only ever tell us about our observable universe, the bubble of space-time we inhabit. "As for the shape of the whole thing, an astrophysicist at Montana State University named Neil Cornish claim's that the13.7 billion LY CMBR "threshold" (for lack of a better word) would be 78 billion light-years away from the big bang. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

SpeedFreek · Sep 6, 2007

Wow, after all that typing and editing, I will need a day or two to recover! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> And the above post doesn't even begin to address oldschoolmojo's own theories on redshift themselves... might they be based on similar misconceptions? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

SpeedFreek · Sep 9, 2007

It seemed to me that the Universal multipole was outside of the 26 to 27.4 billion LY bubble, but the dipole is so prominent in our sky I'd guess that the Milky Way is about as far away from the center of the Universe as our Sun is from the center of the Galaxy. Just a guess. It would also seem that this bubble would be relatively close to the center, with Cornish's 78 billion LY radius. But if I understand what Cornish et al are saying, it's that the 27.4 billion LY bubble IS the 156 billion LY bubble, only with inflation accounting for how far the farthest events and objects have moved since their light became observable at our position. It should be noted that I don't have any problems tapping the Hubble Constant to extrapolate these inflated figures. I merely suppose that this expansion quickly happened during a particular Epoch of inflationary phase transition. When given the same data, what is your opinion? Having read through the entirety of your big post on the previous page, in stages (with tea-breaks!), I am somewhat in a daze.. All I can do right now is point you back to Cornish's paper, which I believe is talking about the observable universe only. It seems to me he is extrapolating the comoving distance back to the CMB and beyond, through space that is expanding. From that he gives a lower bound for the size of the universe outside our observable universe. As for your own theories, I have absorbed as much as I can of them. You agree that I am representing the mainstream ("you 'mainstream' guys") view but I accept that cosmology is always progressing, sometimes going through major changes. Some of the concepts you propose may indeed turn out to be the case and some may not - I have no way of knowing if space can act in the way you propose. All I do here, on this forum, is try to answer peoples questions about the universe, using the current best model in cosmology, the mai <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

weeman · Sep 10, 2007

I've never heard such an absurd statement! A day or two of recovery from SDC??? Never! SDC is good for your health. Better than 'an apple a day' <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

the expanding universe

ajna

Guest

ajna

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

dragon04

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

oldschoolmojo

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

weeman

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page