92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

I always wondered. If we put people at different points all around the globe with the most powerful telescope ever. And each person that looks out can see young universes 13.8 billion light years away. How is it that we are surrounded by young universes yet originated from a big bang that came from one point? Shouldn't believers in the Big Bang when they're standing at all different points around the globe shouldn't one person look on one side and see a young universe and the person on the other side see the void we are expanding into? Why is it when I look around me all I see is young universes?

originally posted by: gflyg
I always wondered. If we put people at different points all around the globe with the most powerful telescope ever. And each person that looks out can see young universes 13.8 billion light years away. How is it that we are surrounded by young universes yet originated from a big bang that came from one point? Shouldn't believers in the Big Bang when they're standing at all different points around the globe shouldn't one person look on one side and see a young universe and the person on the other side see the void we are expanding into? Why is it when I look around me all I see is young universes?

No, for the very reason that there is no central point of expansion. Where would you look for young or old? Everywhere.

Wouldn't time slow down for all mass travelling away from the centre of the singularity. So what we see as 13.7 billion years from earth's perspective might be equivalent to say 1000 billion years when viewed from the location of the singularity.

originally posted by: glend
Wouldn't time slow down for all mass travelling away from the centre of the singularity. So what we see as 13.7 billion years from earth's perspective might be equivalent to say 1000 billion years when viewed from the location of the singularity.

No, 13,7 billion years is 13,7 billion years.

13,7 billion years is the exact time and distance the radiation needed to travel in a expanding universe to Reach us.

The "Source" was much closer and younger than 13,7 billion years. Not older. 13,7 billion years is the age of the traveling light.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chosonone

First, the Big Bang stuff is as crazy as any other whatever goes type theories that anyone can put up because it's just a guesswork at best.

Actually, there is evidence which supports it. Quite a lot of evidence.

You seem to be talking about dimensions in an odd way, more like you are referring to parallel realities rather than what dimensions actually are.

It's not possible to create something out of nothing by luck.
When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.
My point about existence of another dimension has nothing to do with parallel reality.
Through another dimension (spiritual), our physical universe was born. That is more plausible than a big bang theory ('cause there is absolutely nothing to begin with).
I just described earlier what lives in another dimension.

a reply to: chosonone

When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.

That means this vacuum of Space you speak of is not absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.

If the Vacuum is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is. Only this vacuum could form something.

The absolute vacuum is something, It is there ..... its not like it doesnt exist?

a reply to: gflyg

If we put people at different points all around the globe with the most powerful telescope ever. And each person that looks out can see young universes 13.8 billion light years away.

The only universe anyone has ever seen is the one we live in. Do you mean galaxies? We don't see thirteen-billion-year-old galaxies everywhere we look (they're rare and hard to find) but we do see galaxies, in every direction, all the way out to the limits of the visible universe. The farther away they are the older they are. The oldest we can see are about thirteen billion years old.

Shouldn't believers in the Big Bang when they're standing at all different points around the globe shouldn't one person look on one side and see a young universe and the person on the other side see the void we are expanding into?

No. What we should see is what we do see. The original ‘point’ of the Big Bang was the Universe, and it still is. The 'point’ is now some 93bn light-years in diameter. The place the Big Bang occurred is, literally, ‘all over the Universe’. The Universe is expanding outwards from where you are standing. And outwards from every other point in it, too.

It is, I agree, not very easy to visualize or even to understand. Most people have trouble with it at first, and some people never get their heads properly wrapped round it.

a reply to: Astyanax




Are the galaxies really older if they are further away. Or is it that the light takes a longer time to Reach us?


Wouldn't that just make the light older because it had to travel further in a expanding Space?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

As the OP pointed out, our observations of the universe seem to indicate it has no curvature at all, which means that space is infinite in all directions.

Only if you insist that the Universe is also boundariless. Assume a boundary and a flat universe need not be infinite.

a reply to: chosonone

It's not possible to create something out of nothing by luck.

You speak with great assurance. How do you know this?

When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.

That is not how the Universe came into existence. Space did not exist before the Universe.

Through another dimension (spiritual), our physical universe was born.

What evidence do you have to support this?

a reply to: spy66

Are the galaxies really older if they are further away. Or is it that the light takes a longer time to Reach us?

If you have scientific evidence suggesting that the speed of light in vacuo is not constant or has changed over time, I would love to see it. Until I do, I choose to believe the evidence I have seen, which shows clearly and unambiguously that c is a constant.

Wouldn't that just make the light older because it had to travel further in a expanding Space?

No. Here’s a thought experiment to help you work out why.

Imagine an ant crawling at a constant speed along the edge of a tape measure. Mark its progress with a stopwatch. You can easily measure its speed by counting how many divisions of the tape it passes per second. Say the tape is graduated in inches and the ant passes three divisions a second. Then the ant is travelling at — obviously — three inches per second.

Now imagine that the tape measure is made of elastic, and that you’re stretching it wider as the ant walks along it. Because the expansion of the tape carries the ant along with it, the beast still continues to pass the divisions on the tape at the same rate as before — three a second. In the frame of reference of the tape, its speed has not changed.

But in your frame of reference — that of the person holding and stretching the tape — the ant is moving a lot faster, because the speed at which the tape is expanding is now added to its own walking pace.

That is exactly what happens to light when space expands. It doesn’t get older. It gets faster.

a reply to: Astyanax

I would love to see it. Until I do, I choose to believe the evidence I have seen, which shows clearly and unambiguously that c is a constant.

I am not saying c is not a constant. That is not the case.

That is also why Your thought Experiment dont add up.

Lets say you are in Galaxy 13 billion years from where i am. And we observe eachothers galaxies. How would you tell me that my Galaxy is older than Yours?

I should see the exact same Redshift as you would, if Your though Experiment adds up.

If you tell me that my Galaxy is 13 billion years old. And i say.... so is Yours according to the Redshift. Who would be right?

How would you argue that my Galaxy is older than Yours? When Your Galaxy is 13 billion years old to according to my observations.

This would be the case for both of us if c is a constant With the expansion.

I wonder if anyone here could help me with something i've been wondering sometimes.

If I travel near light speed to imaginary star, it would take couple of years for me, but on earth it would have been hundreds or thousands of years.

I always hear that when we look at the stars we see the stars as they are when the light reaches us, so we see how the star was years ago.

What I was wondering is that when i watch Alpha Centauri, which is about 4 light years away, I would see it how it was 4 years ago, but if a light particle travels at the speed of light, wouldn't that mean that the time for the particle has been 4 years but for everyone on Earth and Alpha Centauri it has been much longer?

a reply to: Phatdamage

The big Bang ins;t a hoax, it's a theory. A Theory is not a hoax. But the theory is incorrect. Anyone who believes in the Big Bang has more faith than anyone in any religion here on earth. If you can't see why, you are weirder than those you criticize for believing in a creator. The Big Bang goes against 5 main scientific principles.

a reply to: spy66

Lets say you are in Galaxy 13 billion years from where i am. And we observe eachothers galaxies. How would you tell me that my Galaxy is older than Yours?

When does each of us observe the other’s galaxy?

Both at the same time?

According to whose clock and calendar? Yours or mine?

Yours? Then I made my observation 13bn years before you made yours.

Mine? Then I am making my observation 13bn years after you made yours.

At the same time according to someone sitting exactly halfway between your galaxy and mine? Then, assuming no gravitational lensing to mess things up, we both make our observations at the same time — six and a half billion years before the observer at the halfway point sees us making them.

This is what we mean by Relativity. There’s no God’s Clock somewhere out there keeping time for the whole Universe.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: spy66

Lets say you are in Galaxy 13 billion years from where i am. And we observe eachothers galaxies. How would you tell me that my Galaxy is older than Yours?

When does each of us observe the other’s galaxy?

Both at the same time?

According to whose clock and calendar? Yours or mine?

Yours? Then I made my observation 13bn years before you made yours.

Mine? Then I am making my observation 13bn years after you made yours.

At the same time according to someone sitting exactly halfway between your galaxy and mine? Then, assuming no gravitational lensing to mess things up, we both make our observations at the same time — six and a half billion years before the observer at the halfway point sees us making them.

This is what we mean by Relativity. There’s no God’s Clock somewhere out there keeping time for the whole Universe.

You know what i mean by this.

In other Words you cant tell if a Galaxy is actually older than another. All you know is that, according to the Redshift... light must have traveld a given distance in time from the Galaxy to you. You only know the timeframe the light used to Reach you.

a reply to: Phatdamage

What if, the big bang we can meassure is a big bang but nothing else? It could be a gigantic sun exploding, it could be ET warfare for all we know.
Nothing can move faster than light? They have found something that moves faster though, can't remember the name of it, but it does. A hypothesis is true untill disproven.

500 years ago: Earth is flat.
200 years ago: We will never fly.
100 years ago: We will never get out in space.
50 years ago: Personal computers will never be small enough to fit your pocket.

Now? well. Yeah. You get the idea.

Remember though that time is relative. It is quite possible that from where we observe the universe 13 billion years have passed from from another part many more have passed. The forces at work in the universe are tremendous and time and space probably bent out of our comprehension. Remember as velocity increases so does the dilation of time between a fixed point and that moving, travelling at half the speed of light away from a point and returning would result in there being a different time reference between the two. Indeed the atomic clock in orbit has to be recalibrated now and again due to the difference in time due to the relative speed it travels in orbit - that isn't even travelling away, merely in orbit. When you factor in gravitional distortion of the universe, galaxies themselves could appear frozen in age, younger or older than an observer in that system would be.

If the universe is infinite, that would mean there are an infinite number of other "earths" out there, with all that that entails.

Quite a thought...

a reply to: Astyanax

I cant wrap my head around this, 92BYA is the diameter, the radius is 46BYA.. Einstein relativity would only be relative to the constant which is that BB happened 13.7 BYA.. What am I missing with the Big Bang theory based on ancient Hinduism..

I hate the fact when the universe expands, there is a difference between science as a fact ( observation ) and the imagination ( theory )