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

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: chosonone

Your idea actually isn't original string theory oreduxtuon involves ti braines colliding which leads to the creation of that universe. And yes they looked for the signs unfortunately they are not ahiwung ou on CBR. So thus theory is beginning to lose favor with physics community. They tend to be ficussing more now on virtual particles.

I know what you're saying in general but that's not the point of my theory.
The Big bang theory is flawed if you ask me how the universe started.
It is the dimension to dimension transfer that started the big bang.
That is from "spiritual" to physical dimension transferred by spiritual world.
We got to understand that in the very beginning there was no such thing as vacuum/space.

Of course space didn't exist ill agree there. But the spiritual thing makes no sense whatsoever. There is really only a couple of possibilities none of which has anything to do with spritual anything

The term "spirits" won't make any sense to science community but there is just no other way to describe it.
Unless we can open up other dimension and invent the technology to be able to see them and find out what they are made of.
It's just not going to happen with our lack of understanding about other outer-worldly nature.
It shouldn't mean it doesn't make any sense because quite a lot of people all over the world have experienced unnatural (to our world) phenomenon.
Like I've said yesterday even we're a part spiritual beings trapped inside our body, making us only semi-spiritual.

it's been proven and demonstrated more than once that you can travel faster than the speed of light EM Drive
and really, when they say "light years" they are referring to distance rather than speed so they were saying that from edge to edge it is 92 x 157,678,841,210 kilometers (approx)

originally posted by: AkaDeDrow
it's been proven and demonstrated more than once that you can travel faster than the speed of light EM Drive...

No, it has not been proven and demonstrated that one can travel faster than speed of light.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: spy66

You are basically telling me that i am wrong.

That’s right. Not only are you wrong but you are wrong over and over again in exactly the same way, despite having your mistake explained to you time and time again.

Our Math would be exactly the same.

Aside from that all-important 13.8-billion-year gap, which has not yet registered in your well-armoured brain.

No i am not.

And you cant even prove me wrong.

This is basically how you see you thought Experiment.


My question to you was.

- How can you argue which of these two galaxies are oldest.
THe image just depicts light from the one Galaxy. Wouldnt the same laws apply to the other Galaxy as well, because light would be traveling to that Galaxy also. With the exact same referances....Space and light would streach equally for the other Galaxy as well.

It is all about where the observer is observing from isnt it?

originally posted by: Phatdamage
Wouldn't that suggest that the universe expanded at a velocity greater than the speed of light?.......... but, i hear you say "That's impossible, as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light!!"

Nothing can travel through space faster than light, but space itself can expand at a greater rate. Which is exactly what happened during the Inflation epoch.

Maybe there are outer universes and four multidimensional planes of reality?

Phage:

Yes. That is what I said. Tidal forces are transferring Earth's rotational energy to the Moon. The moon is tidally locked to Earth. The two bodies are not repelling each other.

I'm not for a second disagreeing with you, but feel you are being disingenuous and somewhat economical with the facts. The moon was much closer to the earth back in pre-history, but over 4.5 billions it has moved out to its present distance and orbit, and is still moving futher away from earth at a very slow rate. Both bodies are acting upon each other, but the moon is being slingshot further away from the earth due to its mass.

You're not one for agreeing with anyone else's point of view...are you, even when the same thing is being said, but differently?

You have created a circular argument. Gravity is not immaterial because something that is immaterial cannot affect matter. Gravity is immaterial (im= not, material=matter), it is not matter and it affects matter.

No, there is no circular argument. I should clarify my stance on immateriality. Absolute immateriality cannot be interacted with, in the extent that none of the four fundamental forces in nature can act upon whatever is immaterial (which is not to suggest that something immaterial can be objectified). Immateriality can best be defined as the state of 'absolute nothing'. Mathematics cannot place a quantitative measure upon it. We can only talk of immateriality conceptually as the opposite state of materiality because of our interaction with material things. If any of the four fundamental forces can act upon something, it is not immaterial in the absolute sense.
Thus, the 'graviton', the speculated carrier particle of gravity, or gravitational waves, act upon matter, ergo, gravity cannot be immaterial in the absolute sense (which is why 'mind' is not immaterial in the absolute sense, either, because it interacts with the human brain and body). Hence the argument is not circular, and at which point we come to space.
Currently, space is best understood as immaterial in the absolute sense. The four forces and matter have to occur within a 'state', but they do not interact with that 'state' as that would defeat the object of independent existence. Space is understood in terms of 'spatiality', and that matter and the four forces occur within that spatiality. In fact, it is only because of material things and forces in space, that we can conceptualise space at all. Without content in space, we could not know space.
Of course, if space has its own form of energy and force (ala, Einstein), then it is not immaterial in the absolute sense, but would be operating on its own fundamental physics which we have yet to both detect and define, but whose 'operation' may well be the clue to gravity? Space itself, might well regulate matter and the four known forces, being the originator of gravity and matter?

In that case, you are misusing the term theory.

Not at all. theory is hypothetical supposition until proven, and only then can it be accepted as fact. The 'Big Bang' is still only a theory, even if the evidence would seem to point to it being fact, we still haven't gone the whole distance to prove it so. We cannot say for certain that the universe birthed itself from nothing, and from an infinitesimal point. It is counter-intuitive to suggest that something came from nothing in the absolute sense.

I think with a little Googling, you would have found the explanation. In any case, here's a nice answer from Frank Heile from Stanford:

The reason for the difference is that, first of all, 13.8 billion light years is essentially the radius of a sphere of the CMB radiation that is being observed by the WMAP and Planck satellites. Therefore the diameter of that sphere would be 27.6 billion light years. So that brings us a little closer to the diameter of the 93 billion light year of the "observable" universe that is often quoted.

Each of the yellow or red bumps seen on the CMB image below, will, by NOW, 13.8 billion years later, have become a supercluster of galaxies. In the meantime the continued expansion of the universe would have resulted in those superclusters of galaxies being 46.5 billion light years from us at this time.

(CMB image from the Planck satellite, for more information about the CMB see my answer to How far backwards in time is it possible to see?)

So the idea is: if we waited another 46.5 - 13.8 = 32.7 billion years, we should actually be able to see the light emitted right now from those superclusters of galaxies in our telescopes.  The light is already on its way towards us but it will take a while to reach us since it will have to come from a sphere with a diameter of 93 billion light years.

Unfortunately, it is no longer true that we shall eventually see that light from those super clusters. The problem is that we now know that due to dark energy, the expansion of the universe is actually increasing at an accelerated rate (actually it has been accelerating for at least 3 billion years). Because of the accelerated expansion, those superclusters, which are now 46.5 billion light years from us, will be receding from us at a rate that is greater than the speed of light by the time we wait another 32.7 billion more years.

So, the diameter of 93 billion light years is, at most, a theoretical estimate of the current distance of all the matter that we can NOW see, even if the light we see  is 13.8 billion years old (as in the case for the CMB images).

At 379,000 years after the big bang, there was a bump (overdensity) in the region of space where our super-cluster (the Virgo cluster), and our galaxy (the Milky Way) would eventually develop. You might wonder how far away the bumps were then that would eventually show up on the CMB image show above? Well we can calculate that! The CMB is at a redshift of z=1100  . There is a scale factor for the universe that is a function of time, a(t)  . The redshift is related to the scale factor by
a(t NOW )a(t CMB ) =z+1  .

Which means that the diameter of those bumps that would become our CMB image would be 96 billion light years/1101 which is 87 million light years in diameter.

originally posted by: John333
it's that non-existence is a baseline occurence that is in itself infinite. meaning it has no border.. it literally is infinite. thus empty space would always exist even if no matter or anything ever existed at all. empty space would still be there infinite in size. a blank canvas waiting to be written on for eternity...

...

...i mean mathematically if a solid mass explodes, not all of it's material will travel at the same velocity in all directions. there will be small differences from the outer material and the material closer to the core.

The explosion analogy does not apply to the Big Bang Theory.

You would be best served the stop thinking of the idea behind the Big Bang as being a ball of material sitting in the middle of empty space (our universe with nothing in it) that exploded, filling that empty space with material. That's NOT what the theory says. Instead, there was no space (no universe) before the Big Bang, empty or otherwise.

As the theory goes, the Big Bang was not an explosion of material in space, but rather it was the creation and expansion of space. The Big Bang theoretically is not only what created the stuff in our universe universe, BUT the Big Bang is also what created the space itself in which that stuff resides. There is no "our universe" that could exist as we know it without the energy and matter from the Big Bang.

A person could not be sitting in a spaceship outside the big bang, watching the first moments of that "bang", because there is no space (as we know it) in which that spaceship could nave been sitting. The space in our universe wasn't created yet; that's what the big bang did. Instead, there was nothingness outside of the Big bang (not "empty space", but "nothingness", which is different than empty space, as we define it).

"Nothingness" is a difficult concept for us to grasp. It doesn't mean "empty", but rather it means a place that does not exist. A place that is "empty" is a place that still exists, even though that place is empty. "Nothingness" is the nonexistence of any place at all (as entities from our universe define "place").

It's possible that some other dimension exists outside our own existence in which the big bang occurred (an all-encompassing "multiverse" in which other universes reside like bubbles, and where big bang-like moments create multiple universes). However, entities from our universe (and matter and energy in general from our universe) probably could not exist in that multiverse, because the laws of physics that allow our fundamental particles to exist may be so different there that, for all intents and purposes, it is "nonexistence" as we define it.

originally posted by: Astyanax
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.

Ok I do like your ansewer and wish I read it earlier but probably would have still posted a thread cause just like you explained it a little different then anyone else has and now I have a better understanding even after all the stuff I have read and watched on the subject. If I can find other people like you I can get an even bigger picture of what I'm trying to visualize. I always picture this explosion outward from a big bang. Now if i was a particle with eyes and we visualise in super slow motion the first nano second after the big bang. What do i see myself exploding out towards? And why when I look in that direction. I know I'm not seeing the dimensions right that's why I'm looking for that one sentence slaps it into my head and I thank you for bringing me one step closer to that vision. I have been trying to understand it for a long time.

I'll tell you why. Because as a species, we are nothing. We float around on this tiny pebble as pieces of meat who make predictions based on mathematics which Is a language made up by humans themselves .

We make a language, a standard, we use it to make our own observations.

What I am trying to say is... Scientists, you and I... We all know absolutely nothing in the big scheme of things. There is no way for us to understand how anything works without actually getting the truth from the maker himself.

I will never listen to scientists when it comes to anything that isn't already obvious.

I know a fire will burn me, I know ice is cold. I know an object in motion stays in motion. I know space has no oxygen, I know the very obvious things.

But when things that are so far beyond our reach are being "predicted" and no human soul has ever made it past the moon... Come on.

For all we know the universe could be trillions of years older than we think. We could be inside of an atom for all we know. The nearest star system with other humans or something could be a few light years away...

a reply to: gflyg

Easiest way to explain it is we and everything we see is inside the point of origin it all expanded at once. Like a blueberry inside a muffin the blueberry sees everything rush away from it without ever moving.

a reply to: Phantom423

That is an interesting video, if the light from 13-14 billion years ago is just reaching us now and those galaxies have moved that distance from the center from both sides still gets you only 56 billion 28 on each side.
So one of three things is out; traveling faster than the speed of light, or the actual age of the universe, or the size of the universe. If the actual age of universe is 23 billion years the math works. Then again maybe it's all out if even the travel is slightly faster than the speed of light lets say 12%, and the universe is as one poster said actually 140 light years in diameter, there are three variables and for science to be 100% accurate on all three is highly unlikely.

We are guessing on everything and we could be out by billions. If something can move faster than the speed of light how much faster is it going, to use a star trek measurement warp 3 warp 7 ? Just how much faster and how do we even measure that ?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

That is an interesting video, if the light from 13-14 billion years ago is just reaching us now and those galaxies have moved that distance from the center from both sides still gets you only 56 billion 28 on each side.
So one of three things is out; traveling faster than the speed of light, or the actual age of the universe, or the size of the universe. If the actual age of universe is 23 billion years the math works. Then again maybe it's all out if even the travel is slightly faster than the speed of light lets say 12%, and the universe is as one poster said actually 140 light years in diameter, there are three variables and for science to be 100% accurate on all three is highly unlikely.

We are guessing on everything and we could be out by billions. If something can move faster than the speed of light how much faster is it going, to use a star trek measurement warp 3 warp 7 ? Just how much faster and how do we even measure that ?

Well discovery is a never-ending process. We've come a long way, but also a long way to go. But I wouldn't characterize science as guesswork. That would imply that we have no confidence in our measurements and that experimental data which is repeatable has no significance.

As to your questions on the speed of light, the professional physicists here on the board have discussed similar topics before I think. Perhaps ask the questions in the "Ask Me Anything..." thread?

An interesting article here from NATURE, 2014, about increasing complexity. Short version is: the more you know, the more complex everything gets - so stay tuned for more questions!

Theoretical physics: Complexity on the horizon

A concept developed for computer science could have a key role in fundamental physics — and point the way to a new understanding of space and time.

Amanda Gefter

28 May 2014 Corrected: 30 May 2014

www.nature.com...

a reply to: soekvg

I will never listen to scientists when it comes to anything that isn't already obvious.

How obvious are the quantum principles by which the device you are using operates?

If A and B are objects moving left and right, respectively, at c (light speed) they are moving away from each other at 2c
Assume A, B, C, X, Y, Z are moving from the center. A B and C to the left and X Y Z to the right and they are all moving at speed c relative to their neighbour or the center; A, B, C, *, X, Y, Z. (* is the centre).

A travels from B at c. A travels from C at 2c. A travels from * at 3c.

C travels from * at c. From X at 2c. From Y at 3c and from Z at 4c.

But they are only moving relative to each other at greater than c. They are not moving absolutely more than c. That is, they are not moving through space at more than c. Space is expanding with them. Imagine an elastic string with beads on it. Pull it at both ends and the space between each bead expands.

(I think I've got this right!)

a reply to: EnPassant

In the case of the expansion of space, they aren't necessarily moving at all, it's just the distance between (space) them which is increasing.

It's somewhat like the concept of using a "folding" of space to get from one place to another without bothering to travel there. But the reverse.

a reply to: Phage
Yes, I didn't read all the thread. Might have been answered already...

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Astyanax

edit on 27-12-2015 by glend because: (no reason given)

a reply to: dragonridr

"Stars could never warm the universe this shows a complete lack if understanding of thermal dynamics"

I don't think Arthur Eddington was a fool. I have not read his work but the gist of it in that microwave radiation from stars is absorbed by the material between galaxies.

Are there mathematical calculations that prove the microwave background would still be at 2.7°K after an explosion that occurred 13 billion years ago? If so then its probably invalid as the 13 billion age of the universe was based on the constant expansion rate of 72 kilometers per second which was recently found invalid when it was discovered the expansion of the universe is not constant but accelerating. So if the Universe did inflate, but is instead 100's of billions of years old, then any calculations that show the microwave background should be at 2.7°K after a 13 billions year old explosion are wrong!

Its only a matter of time before we find stars even older than HD 140283 which estimated at being 14.6 billion years old and has heavy elements so is at least a second generation star