It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Observational Evidences for an Infinite Universe

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I've been discussing the possibility in a few separate threads now and would like to put everything under one discussion for the possibility of an infinite universe.



  • We see old mature high density galaxies near the supposed 'beginning' of the universe.

    LINK

    This is but one article discussing old galaxies where they shouldn't be old. This article is by no means an end all to the point, but a beginning to further research on the claim.

  • We also see young galaxies on the order of a few hundred million to one billion years old near our own galaxy.

    LINK

    I'm having a little difficulty in finding more information about these particular galaxies and others like it, but I was astonished enough to learn that these young galaxies exist in a period of time where only old galaxies should exist.

  • If we look out in any direction we see light as it was at a max 13.7-14BLY ago from what I've been able to learn. Yet in every direction we see the same thing, old and young galaxies together at that distance and period of time.

    As we don't live within the center of the universe, it make's no sense that every direction should show the same age. If we existed near an 'edge' then we should see only as far as that edge exists. Yet this is not the case, every direction we see out the same distance.

  • According to current physics the reason why it is so hard to see galaxies that far out is due to how dim the light is. If light comes to the point of being difficult to detect from that distance, then even in an infinite universe the same should hold true for light further out as it get's absorbed by the radiation surrounding our local observable space.




I'll start with just this for now as I'm still researching a few other points of interest to discuss. One would be a mechanism/process that allows for the 'creation' of the lighter elements that seems plausible enough.

I just don't understand how a theory can be taken seriously when it invents invisible excuses to explain away inconsistencies in observational evidence. Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, inflation periods that break the laws of physics, pressures in the early universe as explanation for black holes and mature galaxies and yet somehow they have no effect on the younger galaxies of the same 'age'.

So, let's discuss!




posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I was thinking about the dark flow problem just now and thought I'd write down my thoughts on the subject.

LINK

In a universe with a beginning, why would some galaxies be moving towards one particular point in space? Not all of the are doing it, only one group of galactic clusters are doing it. This indicates that something is beyond where we can see, but it's counter-intuitive of the big bang theory.

We've invented unobserved invisible forces to explain away what we visibly observe. If we go by just visible observations while utilizing the laws of physics as they exist, then there are all indications of larger physical structures out there.

I was also wondering, why, if the big bang theory is true, don't all galaxies move away at the same rate of speed from one central point of a singularity? We see galaxies moving in all sorts of chaotic directions and not from an orderly central point.

[EDIT TO ADD]

I've also noticed that galaxies move at different speeds from one another. So, not only do they take their own paths in every which directions, they also do so at different speed, inconsistent with an orderly explosive or expansive force from any singularity that may have existed at some central point in the beginning.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I was look up if protons, neutrons and electrons decay this morning.

I found out that protons hypothetically decay naturally, but have never been observed to do so naturally, but have decayed under interactions in labs. Neutrons decay into protons by releasing an electron and a proton can convert back into a neutron by capturing an electron. From everything I read, electrons just don't decay at all.

Just thought it was interesting considering if matter exists in a finite state within the bounds of an infinite space and follows the laws of physics as they exist then there would always be the same finite amount of matter in existence and that it doesn't decay into nothing and would still interact with matter distributed throughout the infinite expanse.

So even if our local space decays into those three basic atomic structures, the laws of physics should allow those basic atomic structures to come back together and form new planets, stars and galaxies.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Hi!




As we don't live within the center of the universe, it make's no sense that every direction should show the same age. If we existed near an 'edge' then we should see only as far as that edge exists. Yet this is not the case, every direction we see out the same distance.

I was also wondering, why, if the big bang theory is true, don't all galaxies move away at the same rate of speed from one central point of a singularity? We see galaxies moving in all sorts of chaotic directions and not from an orderly central point.

[EDIT TO ADD]

I've also noticed that galaxies move at different speeds from one another. So, not only do they take their own paths in every which directions, they also do so at different speed, inconsistent with an orderly explosive or expansive force from any singularity that may have existed at some central point in the beginning.



There is not any central point to the expansion.
It is not like an explosion, it is like an expanding (infating, hence inflation) baloon, where the universe is baloons surface.
Every point is expanding from every other point, the speed of expansion depends on their distance.




According to current physics the reason why it is so hard to see galaxies that far out is due to how dim the light is. If light comes to the point of being difficult to detect from that distance, then even in an infinite universe the same should hold true for light further out as it get's absorbed by the radiation surrounding our local observable space.



You made a point here that the observed redshift could be explained not only by doppler-like effect as big bang theory does, but also by absorption of light in intergalactic space (which of course depends on distance too).

The reason I think physicists prefer inflation is for example because of this:
(source www.talkorigins.org...)




l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect

In addition to the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, photons from the CMBR can also be subtly affected by the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. The basis for this effect is gravitational redshift, one of the most basic predictions from GR and first demonstrated experimentally by Pound and Rebka in 1960. The basic idea is that, as photons enter a gravitational potential well, they pick up extra energy and when they exit they lose energy. Hence, scientists refer to photons "falling into" and "climbing out of" gravitational wells.

As CMBR photons pass through the foreground large scale structure, they pass through many such gravitational wells. If the depth of the well is static (or rather if the depth of the well is increasing at the same rate as the expansion of the universe), then the net energy change is zero. All of the energy they gained falling in is lost climbing out. However, if the universe contains dark energy (or has an open geometry), then the universe expands faster than the gravitational wells around massive objects can grow. As a result, the CMBR photons do not lose all of the energy they gained falling into the potentials. This makes the CMBR look very slightly hotter in the direction of these potentials, which also contain the highest concentrations of galaxies.

Following the release of the WMAP data, studies done by Scranton (2003), Afshordi (2004), Boughn (2004), and Nolta (2004) measured this effect using galaxies selected in a number of different ways. The signal-to-noise in any one of the measurements was not very large. However, taken together (and combined with the WMAP observation that the geometry of the universe was best fit by a flat universe), they provide significant evidence that this effect is real and is best explained by the standard Lambda CMD model of BBT.




[edit on 27-9-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
As for dark matter, you have basicaly two options to explain observed too fast galactic rotations:

1. There is a powerful force we dont know about (maybe quintessence?)
2. There is mass we dont know about (dark matter)

Dark matter explanation is for many reasons more popular, but first option is being researched, too. I remember reading an article about it somewhere.




Just thought it was interesting considering if matter exists in a finite state within the bounds of an infinite space and follows the laws of physics as they exist then there would always be the same finite amount of matter in existence and that it doesn't decay into nothing and would still interact with matter distributed throughout the infinite expanse.

So even if our local space decays into those three basic atomic structures, the laws of physics should allow those basic atomic structures to come back together and form new planets, stars and galaxies.



If you are implying eternal or very very old universe, I disagree. There is a thing called entropy (disorder) that makes it pretty impossible. Thermodynamics is a bitch.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I can see how these observations would seriously discredit the big bang theory (and those theorist have their reasons for these anomalies), I'd go along with common sense and take observation over their theories. Based on the big bang theory the universe should look like a balloon - all but hollow on the inside with a thin line of existence on the outside, but instead it's all spread out like dust in a dust storm. But I don't see how these observations prove space to be infinite.

I don't see how space can be infinite within a universe, it doesn't work out. If you draw a line and put a point on it, then I make that line infinite it loses all of it's point of reference. Even though you can draw it on a piece of paper, in reality you would never be able to travel to that point. Your starting point would be infinetly far away from it, no matter "where" you started. At least, that's how I view it, who knows.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences.

Explanation: Way to go on the thermodynamics kybosh without 1st proving that the universe is either isolated, closed or open!


Personal Disclosure: If the Universe has quantum energy bubbling out of nothing RE: ZPE then that would make the universal system neither thermodynamically isolated or closed regardless of its physical topography!

P.S. As for the ballon analogy its not a good fit metaphorically as it presents the fabric as 2D and not 3D! Try a fruit loaf dough thats baking look instead. As the dough cooks it expands and all the fruit pieces are thrust in a 3D fashion away from each other!



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Novise
I can see how these observations would seriously discredit the big bang theory (and those theorist have their reasons for these anomalies), I'd go along with common sense and take observation over their theories. Based on the big bang theory the universe should look like a balloon - all but hollow on the inside with a thin line of existence on the outside, but instead it's all spread out like dust in a dust storm. But I don't see how these observations prove space to be infinite.

I don't see how space can be infinite within a universe, it doesn't work out. If you draw a line and put a point on it, then I make that line infinite it loses all of it's point of reference. Even though you can draw it on a piece of paper, in reality you would never be able to travel to that point. Your starting point would be infinetly far away from it, no matter "where" you started. At least, that's how I view it, who knows.


The baloon analogy is just an analogy, the surface of a baloon is three-dimensional in reality. Other than that, it is very good analogy.

The space could in fact be infinite in big bang theory. The dark flow indicates that there are another structures beyond visible space (sphere with 28 bilion light years diameter), which is to be expected, because there is no reason for space to end beyond this line.

Then there is another option that we are in fact living on a baloon with 3 dimensional surface (four dimensional sphere).
In this case, if you would go in one direction for long enough, you will eventualy come back to where you started (like on a surface of a baloon or on Earth, for example).

Another option is that the space ends somewhere and there is something other, some boundary. This would be really strange and I dont think reality works that way...

All in all, nobody knows how large space really is.


Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Maslo
 


Explanation: Way to go on the thermodynamics kybosh without 1st proving that the universe is either isolated, closed or open!


Personal Disclosure: If the Universe has quantum energy bubbling out of nothing RE: ZPE then that would make the universal system neither thermodynamically isolated or closed regardless of its physical topography!



We have never observed "creation" of new energy, only changes from one form to other form. So, it is logical to consider the universe a closed system. Vacuum energy is not violating conservation of energy.
Im not saying it is totaly impossible, but improbable it is.

If the universe is eternal, why has not all the matter fallen into black holes? Why has universe avoided heat death? Why is sky black?

www.godandscience.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I think that the observed universe could be infinite in size, but I disagree it is infinite in time.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
The OPs original argument was the presence of intristic red-shift.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Big bang theory tries to explain it statisticaly, by very big number of quasars and galaxies. It is then probable that some near and far galaxies will be projected on the same line of sight, giving impression that they are connected, which they are not.




This basic picture tells us that, if we look at very distant regions of the universe (i.e., galaxies with very high redshifts), we should see mainly small, irregular galaxies. For the most part, this is what we find (with some notable exceptions, as we will cover later).

The bulk of observed quasars have redshifts near z ~ 2, which suggests that there was a particular epoch during the history of the universe when the conditions were right for a large fraction of galaxies. For steady-state models of the universe, this is hard to explain. On the other hand, BBT explains this quite neatly by noting that, in their early stages of formation, galaxies have a great deal of dust and free gas and galaxy collisions were also more common, which could serve as a mechanism for triggering quasar activity.

Arp's claims are supported by some other astronomers, most notably Gregory and Margaret Burbidge. Most astronomers, however, reject his claims, pointing out that his observations are explainable by chance superpositions of objects on the sky. Calculating the exact probability of a given set of superpositions can be quite difficult and Arp's supporters and detractors generally disagree on whether Arp's calculations along these lines are valid.

Recently, a study by Scranton et al (2005) may have shed some light on this controversy. Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the positions of 200,000 quasars were correlated with the positions of 13 million galaxies. In Arp's model, galaxies and quasars are physically associated with each other and, hence, one would expect that correlating the two populations would look a great deal like correlating the galaxies with themselves. On the other hand, BBT tells us that the quasars are much more distant than the galaxies in this sample, so the cross-correlation due to actual gravitational clustering should be nearly zero. Instead, we should see an induced cross-correlation due to the gravitational lensing of the quasars by the foreground galaxies. This signal is much smaller than the one expected from Arp's model and it changes sign depending on the quasar population. When the SDSS researchers made the measurement, the results matched the expectation from BBT to a high statistical significance.




Some interesting evidence against "tired light" model - analogous to redshift due to absorption of light by interstellar space:

www.astro.ucla.edu...



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 
Disclaimer: As above!

Explanation: 1stly I'll answer your last bit RE: "I think that the observed universe could be infinite in size, but I disagree it is infinite in time."

And I fully agree with you on that RE: CMB [wiki]

But we aren't just talking about the "observable" universe, we are talking about the whole of existence ....back beyond the zero piont of the big bang as we count it which actually isn't the zero point at all but is exactly 1 x plancks length and second after the big bang and represents the whitehole singularity! At the real zero point in time of existence there was only absence and this biased state from an anthropomorphological POV abhors its naked noumena self and covers itself in phenomena that it MAKES FOR FREE because this state works at the QM level but BACKWARDS and that means there IS NO UNCERTAINTY...[absence WILL notice itself..hate it and act on it and KABOOM AKA big bang!]

Now moving on to your comment that RE: "We have never observed "creation" of new energy, only changes from one form to other form. So, it is logical to consider the universe a closed system. Vacuum energy is not violating conservation of energy.
Im not saying it is totaly impossible, but improbable it is."

I provide these wiki links and I will quote from them if required!

Virtual Particles Where do they originate from?

Quantum Foam

Vacuum Polarization

Casimir Effect

Zero Point Energy

Hawking Radiation

Oh and before I forget, where do we get all that pre earmarked and IMMUTABLE energy amount for existence from......Thats right its the Big Bang and since we have no idea of the actual amount of topological space time energy that actually exists then how the hell can we expect our algorythms to work accurately!
It is therefor NOT logical to think that the observable universe is thermodynamically closed. Further more if space is infinite and space itself requires energy to exist [ Frame Dragging [wiki] ] then the energy amount to be put into the TOE equation would be infinite!
And thats not including the energy of Inflation [wiki] driven by an Inflaton [wiki]

Personal Disclosure: Go read Paul Davis book on Superforce! Virtual particals and Vacuum energy don't currently break the laws of thermodaynamics [as we chose to POV it] but they only exist in existence and don't affect the rules that affected what was before time and space. i.e. non existence. Now we are entering a realm of Intelligent Design as how did an absence have rules that could be acted upon? The subjective becoming objective..all realms of psuedo science as we've only the Observable universe to go on and thats hardly the whole picture!


Edited to add that if the total 4D reality is topographically a sphere then wouldn't that kybosh Omega having a Density parameter value of exactly = 1 ???

[edit on 28-9-2009 by OmegaLogos]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Every point is expanding from every other point, the speed of expansion depends on their distance.


Except the space in between atoms? The forces involved are so great to make the space in the universe expand faster than the speed of light, but not the space in between atoms? Is the space in between atoms different than the space in between galaxies? Or is the space inside a galaxy different than the space outside of it? Where does the expansion of space start and end?

In the balloon analogy, draw a little atomic nuclei and then blow the balloon up.


The reason I think physicists prefer inflation is for example because of this:


The problem I have with inflation is that it's an assumption on an observed effect of redshift, but not on an observed effect in itself. We can't recreate inflation and the only method for BBT to work is if we include a mathematical construct called inflation. Whereas we can toy around with redshift results in the lab and show it to be variable in nature and not an accurate measure of distance. So with that in mind we have an observed effect with an experimental evidence of effect, something lacking immensely with inflation.


Dark matter explanation is for many reasons more popular, but first option is being researched, too. I remember reading an article about it somewhere.


I've read about them both as well, but they both seem equally hard to digest because they are mere mathematical constructs to make current theories work and not observed effects of the universe.


If you are implying eternal or very very old universe, I disagree. There is a thing called entropy (disorder) that makes it pretty impossible. Thermodynamics is a bitch.


I don't see why not. Neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. When I looked up the decay of protons, neutrons and electrons, the basic building blocks of all atomic structures, I found out that these thing's don't decay. So, if they never die and interact with one another accordingly to the laws of physics then how can the universe ever get completely dark?

Besides, usually when someone brings up entropy or thermodynamics they're discussing the second law, but that only applies to closed systems and that is assuming the universe is a closed system. We first have to prove the case before we base all of physics off of an assumption, as in big bangs, infinitely dense singularities, black holes, neutron stars, inflation, dark matter/energy etc. If we go by observation alone, then these thing's simply do not exist.


In this case, if you would go in one direction for long enough, you will eventualy come back to where you started (like on a surface of a baloon or on Earth, for example).


So how many galaxies are there in the universe and how many are exact duplicates? If this were the case then the observed amount of matter is much less than what is actually observed because light would be bending back around essentially creating duplicates of everything. So now we need to invent more dark matter/energy to explain the big bang.


If the universe is eternal, why has not all the matter fallen into black holes? Why has universe avoided heat death? Why is sky black?


Matter doesn't fall into a black hole because a black hole exists on paper. The basic constituents of atoms being protons, neutrons and electrons don't decay. Well, a neutron does but can convert back into a proton, so it doesn't really matter all that much. With that in mind, does it not seem reasonable that these basic particles will still coalesce into larger clumps of matter creating new stars etc. ? Why would physics change if everything else stayed the same?

I would assume the sky is black because of how light works. To see light from a far distance we require a larger detector for that light. Including our technology and heck, even our eyes!


[EDIT TO ADD]

I would also like to point out that I don't subscribe to the belief in a before or in non-existence. There doesn't appear to be enough accurate observable evidence without contradiction and paradox to indicate a 'before the universe' type scenario. We also have no evidence of a non-existence or that anything can come from a non-existence. It's just an imagined concept to denote nothingness. I say prove non-existence as an actuality before claiming something can come from it. I also don't subscribe to the belief in time, you can't measure a rate of change and call it something else. All it is is a measurement of rate of change. There is no past, there is no future, we can't go into either one.



[edit on 28-9-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   



Except the space in between atoms? The forces involved are so great to make the space in the universe expand faster than the speed of light, but not the space in between atoms? Is the space in between atoms different than the space in between galaxies? Or is the space inside a galaxy different than the space outside of it? Where does the expansion of space start and end?



Yes, the space between atoms expands, too. But only by so small amount, that we cannot observe it. Even our local group of galaxies is dominated by gravity, not expansion





Whereas we can toy around with redshift results in the lab and show it to be variable in nature and not an accurate measure of distance. So with that in mind we have an observed effect with an experimental evidence of effect, something lacking immensely with inflation.



You can toy all you want, but if redshift is really caused by expansion, you will not show anything in a lab. That is what indeed happened.




I've read about them both as well, but they both seem equally hard to digest because they are mere mathematical constructs to make current theories work and not observed effects of the universe.



They are very good explanations for observed effects of the universe. But if you have any new and better theory, Im all ears...




Besides, usually when someone brings up entropy or thermodynamics they're discussing the second law, but that only applies to closed systems and that is assuming the universe is a closed system. We first have to prove the case before we base all of physics off of an assumption, as in big bangs, infinitely dense singularities, black holes, neutron stars, inflation, dark matter/energy etc. If we go by observation alone, then these thing's simply do not exist.



Even if the universe is an open system, BBT, black holes and many other theories would be almost the same.

Einstein predicted black holes long ago. Then we observed an object in galactic center that weights 4 million suns, and does not emit any light. Is it a black hole? Very probable.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   




So how many galaxies are there in the universe and how many are exact duplicates? If this were the case then the observed amount of matter is much less than what is actually observed because light would be bending back around essentially creating duplicates of everything. So now we need to invent more dark matter/energy to explain the big bang.



First, this theory I said is not proven, it is only a guess (altough educated).

If it is true, no need to invent any stuff, because light would surely not have time to create these duplicates. We are talking about 100 of billions of light years.




I would also like to point out that I don't subscribe to the belief in a before or in non-existence. There doesn't appear to be enough accurate observable evidence without contradiction and paradox to indicate a 'before the universe' type scenario. We also have no evidence of a non-existence or that anything can come from a non-existence. It's just an imagined concept to denote nothingness. I say prove non-existence as an actuality before claiming something can come from it.



Non-existence or not, universe as we know it do seem to have a beginning. That time itself was created in the big bang is not proven, so you are free to believe what you want...




I also don't subscribe to the belief in time, you can't measure a rate of change and call it something else. All it is is a measurement of rate of change. There is no past, there is no future, we can't go into either one.



I dont get what you are trying to say. You dont subscribe to theory of relativity?

I think time is something more than rate of change, because it is influenced by mass. But there is no ether way to measure it that Im aware of, so you are right in a sense.
And given enough energy, you can go to the future! But not to past again...



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Yes, the space between atoms expands, too. But only by so small amount, that we cannot observe it. Even our local group of galaxies is dominated by gravity, not expansion


So, what mechanism is at play that causes an imperceptible amount of expansion inside an atom/galaxy but an exponential rate of expansion across intergalactic space? Is space different inside of a galaxy or atom compared to intergalactic space?

If space itself was expanding, then shouldn't the rate of expansion be the same throughout? If gravity plays a stronger role in slowing down the rate of expansion within a galaxy and other forces within an atom, then what is space composed of that allows gravity and other forces to have such a high effect upon it?


You can toy all you want, but if redshift is really caused by expansion, you will not show anything in a lab. That is what indeed happened.


I respect a lot of your posts in this thread and others, but this one quote is just contradictory. If and is indeed in the same breath? We can't have if redshift is caused by expansion and it is indeed in the same argument, it's contradictory. It either is or it isn't and if it isn't then there should be no question of if it is. Can we show space actually expanding or is it only assumed by redshift despite contradictory results showing it can be variable in nature?


They are very good explanations for observed effects of the universe. But if you have any new and better theory, Im all ears...


I personally don't have my own theories, but I don't see the BBT doing a good job explaining anything really. Anything that creates unobserved inventions and paradoxical contradictions isn't really a good theory.


Einstein predicted black holes long ago. Then we observed an object in galactic center that weights 4 million suns, and does not emit any light. Is it a black hole? Very probable.


Einstein was against black holes IIRC. Nor do I think we have actually found any. There are competing theories that explain/predict the same results of apparent black hole observations with out the invention of these oddities.


If it is true, no need to invent any stuff, because light would surely not have time to create these duplicates. We are talking about 100 of billions of light years.


IDK, seems a little fishy to me. The total size of the universe is IIRC 28 billion light years, even still the observed galaxies should still contain duplicated images of galaxies, also how would inflation affect the amount of visible duplication?


Non-existence or not, universe as we know it do seem to have a beginning. That time itself was created in the big bang is not proven, so you are free to believe what you want...


It only seems to have a beginning due to extrapolating redshift observations backwards in time with the claim that the further we extrapolate back the hotter and denser the universe was. I haven't seen any indications of a hotter and denser universe, just a mathematical musing that it was.


I think time is something more than rate of change, because it is influenced by mass. But there is no ether way to measure it that Im aware of, so you are right in a sense.
And given enough energy, you can go to the future! But not to past again...


Rate of change in matter is influenced by matter. So, no I don't subscribe to relativity.

[EDIT TO FURTHER EXPLAIN POINT]

When we have two clocks on earth measuring the same rate of change, they also receive the same amount of gravitational energy. Send one up in space and it now receives less from earth and gains a tiny amount from the sun. Send that clock in high speed rotation around the planet and now it's not only being tugged by earth at night and the sun at day, but it's being tugged at a different rate of change than the stationary clock on earth. This is how we determined the "validity" of time dilation. AFAIK we have never sent two clocks in synchronous opposite orbit nor two clock at varying speeds in the same direction out away from the planet to further test this claim. For all intents and purposes it appears that mass affects matter in a variable quantity or rate of change, and not that it affect time itself which is nothing more than a measure of rate of change in matter.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:09 AM
link   



So, what mechanism is at play that causes an imperceptible amount of expansion inside an atom/galaxy but an exponential rate of expansion across intergalactic space?



Very simple mechanism. The expansion depends on distance.

In atoms, and in solar system, this distance is too small to have any observable effect. It becomes observable only in larger distances are involved (10s of millions of light years).

Hubble constant is 70.8 ± 1.6 (km/s)/Mpc. Do the math yourself, if you dont believe me.




Can we show space actually expanding or is it only assumed by redshift despite contradictory results showing it can be variable in nature?



We cannot show it in a lab. But there are many things that we cannot show in a lab, and are considered true.



Einstein was against black holes IIRC. Nor do I think we have actually found any. There are competing theories that explain/predict the same results of apparent black hole observations with out the invention of these oddities.



Einstein was against black holes actual existence, but he and his succesors did predict them. Theory of general relativity, maybe the most tested theory in history, predicts them.




IDK, seems a little fishy to me. The total size of the universe is IIRC 28 billion light years, even still the observed galaxies should still contain duplicated images of galaxies, also how would inflation affect the amount of visible duplication?



It is the size of observable universe. Actual size of the universe is unknown, but it is certainly bigger (no reason to end, dark flow...).

For these duplicates to be observed, the actual size of the universe must be lower than its age in years.
For example in an universe with 14 billion light years diameter (circumference in baloon model) and age of 13 bilions of years or lower, they should be observed.
But this doesnt seem to be our case.

Inflation affects it because it can increase time needed for light to go all the way around the universe and come back to where it started, because it increases actual size of the universe.



[edit on 29-9-2009 by Maslo]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Maslo]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   



It only seems to have a beginning due to extrapolating redshift observations backwards in time with the claim that the further we extrapolate back the hotter and denser the universe was. I haven't seen any indications of a hotter and denser universe, just a mathematical musing that it was.



You havent seen them, but they do exist.

www.talkorigins.org...




This basic picture tells us that, if we look at very distant regions of the universe (i.e., galaxies with very high redshifts), we should see mainly small, irregular galaxies. For the most part, this is what we find (with some notable exceptions, as we will cover later). Starting in 1996, the Hubble Space Telescope took a series of very deep images: the Hubble Deep Field, the Hubble Deep Field South, and the Hubble Ultra Deep Field. As one would expect, the morphology of the few nearby galaxies in these images is quite a bit different from the very high redshift galaxies.

Another important indicator of galaxy evolution comes from quasars, specifically their redshift distribution. Quasars are generally believed to be powered by supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies accreting matter; as dust and gas falls into the black hole, it heats up tremendously and emits a huge quantity of energy across a broad spectrum. For most true quasars, the amount of energy released during this process is a few orders of magnitude larger than all of the light emitted by the rest of the galaxy. In order for this sort of behavior to occur for some length of time, galaxies need to have a large quantity of dust and free gas near their cores. The bulk of observed quasars have redshifts near z ~ 2, which suggests that there was a particular epoch during the history of the universe when the conditions were right for a large fraction of galaxies. For steady-state models of the universe, this is hard to explain.






Rate of change in matter is influenced by matter. So, no I don't subscribe to relativity.

[EDIT TO FURTHER EXPLAIN POINT]

When we have two clocks on earth measuring the same rate of change, they also receive the same amount of gravitational energy. Send one up in space and it now receives less from earth and gains a tiny amount from the sun. Send that clock in high speed rotation around the planet and now it's not only being tugged by earth at night and the sun at day, but it's being tugged at a different rate of change than the stationary clock on earth. This is how we determined the "validity" of time dilation. AFAIK we have never sent two clocks in synchronous opposite orbit nor two clock at varying speeds in the same direction out away from the planet to further test this claim. For all intents and purposes it appears that mass affects matter in a variable quantity or rate of change, and not that it affect time itself which is nothing more than a measure of rate of change in matter.



Well, rate of change IS time and it is influenced by matter, so I think we are talking about the exact same thing, just using different words.
You do subscribe to relativity, you just dont know about it..


If I replace word "time" in general relativity with "rate of change", will you subscribe?



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Very simple mechanism. The expansion depends on distance.


The only problem however is that if redshift is an accurate indicator of distance, then this would hold true. We can argue till we're blue in the face, fact is, space has not itself been observed to expand, only through extrapolating redshift estimates backwards in time. Whereas redshift has been demonstrated as being variable in nature, tested and observed. Should we not hold the expansion of space to the same such scrutiny, or do we just blindly accept mathematical constructs as explanations for the universe?


Einstein was against black holes actual existence, but he and his succesors did predict them. Theory of general relativity, maybe the most tested theory in history, predicts them.


There are a lot of problems even with GR itself, one being the invention of an unobserved object to explain certain behaviors. Heck, BBT rest's upon the validity of GR/SR.


Inflation affects it because it can increase time needed for light to go all the way around the universe and come back to where it started, because it increases actual size of the universe.


So the speed of inflation is faster than the speed of light?


You havent seen them, but they do exist.


Yet, if quasars are really that far out/old and are the so called baby galaxies of the early universe, then through redshift we see galaxies that are much older in the same era, this poses a huge problem IMHO. We haven't actually found any black holes either at the heart of these things.


Well, rate of change IS time and it is influenced by matter, so I think we are talking about the exact same thing, just using different words.


Show it's time! I don't see it at all. Thing's move, by nature they have to move or we wouldn't be here. There is nothing indicative of our universe that some magical force of time is required for objects to move, but we do have plenty of well tested theories that explain why thing's move.

You can watch the sun race across the sky and call it time, really your just watching the sun race across the sky as it should do. The theory of time is a nice toy for predicting "future" events, but it's not an actuality of the universe itself and has never actually been proven to exist as such.

When we watch the sun move across the sky and count how many grains of sand fall between the start and end, divide that many grains by whichever unit of measure you choose, in our case 24 "hours". So if 2,000 grains of sand fall in "one hour", then we know that we need 2,000x24 grains to measure "one day".

It's just not time, it's just measuring something else with something else and claiming it's a fundamental physical aspect of the universe called time. Take away any possible way to measure time and you lose all sense of what time is. It doesn't exist and never has existed in our universe.

There is no time dilation occurring, we're not changing a rate of time with these clock experiments. It's a play of words and concepts when we speak of time.



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a) Thanks are due to Maslo for some great explanations
b) sirnex, please read this:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I've read that before, but it rests on to many possibilities and less on certainties and observations of actually being true. In order for it to work it has to mathematically invent an inflationary period that has not been observed nor have I heard of any mechanism that allows or shows or has been demonstrated for the expansion of space faster than what is currently considered the fastest anything can travel. The whole theory does nothing but invent new maths to explain observations without proving those maths are valid to the universe. it's like saying we were created by god without showing god.

Only, they're saying the universe expands because this math on the paper says it expands without showing any actual expansion of space and claiming it's impossible because gravity slows down that expansion. Now think about that for a minute. Our universe was initially an infinitely dense singularity that may or may not have actually existed, contradiction in its own right as it either is or is not, not maybe. Now, everything in our maths dictates that such singularities might exist and if they do, nothing can escape their gravitational fields. Yet we're told to believe that somehow, some magical inflationary field broke that law of physics to 'burst' out our universe from this dense mass of matter?

The whole theory rests upon redshift being a constant and not variable by nature, which it is demonstratively variable by nature, and that GR is an accurate depiction of gravity which hasn't actually been proven either. GR/SR invents to many unobserved "ifs" and paradoxes in order to maintain it's validity in the light of observed instances going against the theory. occam's razor is not being held with high esteem here at all.

[EDIT TO ADD]

Yes, Maslo is in need of thanks for his explanations, it's cleared up some things I hadn't had a well enough grasp on, but not enough to the point of swaying my opinion. I can certainly see how one could imagine a big bang but only if current theory is accurate to describe the model of cosmology. Which it has not been adequately proven to be the case and there are some simpler answers out there for various aspects, but not one whole encompassing theory that explains everything.


[edit on 29-9-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Any physicist will tell you that the issue of singularity that many believe gave rise to the Big Bang is extremely complicated. You are welcome to try and read papers published in peer-reviewed journals. The extreme complexity of physics being proposed does not mean that any dumbed-down theory is necessarily correct.

As to GR, it has made many predictions which hold out very well. Since you have read a lot on this subject, you must know.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join