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.

 

fully formed galaxy at the edge of the universe? big bang?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by XPLodER
 

It's not the galaxies flying away from each other. It is the universe expanding. Means the light has to travel a longer distance.

See: www.astro.ucla.edu...



the expansion allows for three bodies to be moving appart "relitive" to each other and can account for two bodies moving away from each other at half the speed of light, but what happens if there are three bodies and there relitive distences from each other are expanding at 1.5 the speed of light?

i have read alot about cosmological expansion and am having problems applying it to three bodies as the combined rate of recesion is higher than the constant of light. and relitivity states that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light but if we measured the speed of recesion between A and E we get 1.5 times the speed of light

it seams much more logical that what we interperate as expansion is acually the effect of the three body problem and the cumulative effect of light on apparent distence shows that from our position we are stationary and both A and E are receiding from us at 3/4 the speed of light (relitive) to our position.
but in fact all three are moving at 1/2 the speed of light (relitive) to one another
which does not break the cosmic speed limit

xploder
edit on 13-4-2011 by XPLodER because: edit




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Yes very good points in your thread we must always keep an open mind to the possibility of the main-stream theory being wrong its what makes science what it is. When the JWST (James-Webb Telescope) is Launched and used i think we will get a much clearer picture of what really is near the earliest time of our universe it will be interesting to find out
. I Personally think maybe there are other Universes who knows maybe the big bang was just one of many explosions etc.

Nice thread S&F


Check out my thread i made today its pretty cool if u like space.
[/url]
Which Stars Are A Friendly Place For Life To Form Lets See...


if you subscribe to the multi verse theory you will enjoy this
universe boundry interacting with something outside the known universe

this next video is interesting look for the bubble war , this is how i see it working if there are other "universal bubbles"



cool vid

xploder



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
and find a 13.2 billion year old galaxy 13.2 billion light years away from our 13 billion year old galaxy, space would have to expand at a rate of 1 light year per 1 year of galaxy development.
i realize inflation theorys but how can you explain two galaxies of the same age (in no time) seperated by the distence relitive to their ages?
Actually that's pretty close to how the math works out. I calculated the recessional velocity of some of the most distant galaxies and it's close to the speed of light.

But of course you're right that the galaxy that emitted light over 13 billion years ago that we just now see, doesn't even exist anymore as a separate entity. It's probably merged into larger galaxies that have matured as you suggest. The current distance of these galaxies may be over 30 billion light years away, not 13 billion light years as you suggest, so the light leaving them now will never reach the earth due to the "dark energy" observations we've made. The difference between the 13 billion and the over 30 billion is due to expanding space, it's got a larger effect than you surmised.

en.wikipedia.org...


The current comoving distance to the particles which emitted the CMBR, representing the radius of the visible universe, is calculated to be about 14.0 billion parsecs (about 45.7 billion light years), while the current comoving distance to the edge of the observable universe is calculated to be 14.3 billion parsecs (about 46.6 billion light years),[1] about 2% larger.

The age of the universe is about 13.75 billion years...
That gives you an approximate scale for the current distance.

The actual math I think is more complicated, but a rough estimate of the current distance of an object with a lookback time of 13 billion years is:

13/13.75 x 46 billion light years = 43 billion light years.

So the matter that emitted light 13 billion years ago, is currently at a distance of perhaps about 43 billion light years away, though that's a rough estimate and not an exact calculation. I can say it's more than 30 billion light years away for sure if the theory is correct.


edit on 13-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I believe the big bang is wrong also and the date of the Galaxy. You see, They find Galaxies that are 12.5 or w.e billion LYs away and they asume that this is how old the universe is. If light took 12.5 billion years to reach earth, how can they say that this is how old the Universe is... First of all our Solar system is not the middle of the Universe. How can they tell where the point of the "Big bang" happen? It seems like every calculation they make is based on light that gets to us. "Almost like we are the center of the universe." I am not a scientist or some math Genius or have all the knowledge in this area, But this is what it seems like they are saying.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by csinvis
 


you make a really good point
the medium we are using is light
(in our solar system) we know know light travels at a constant.
we know we have a bubble around our star and the medium outside the bubble is denser.
the common element is light almost as if because we havnt acounted for the denser than expected medium and the optical properties of the bubble and galactic lense we are in.
if light is the commonality between all our measurements,
what happens if the lensing effect of the bubbles in the galactic lenses effects light as it transitions the lenses.
if cosmic rays can be reflected these bubbles could effect light as it enters where we veiw it from,
so if cosmological expansion was acually on optical effect because the light we are looking at has to transition through different mediums and boundrys,
the apperent expansion can be explained optically with an expanding galactic lens in a ratio to the solar bubbles lense.

i beleive cosmological expansion could be an optical phenomonon caused by a lenset comprised of a solar bubble lense inside a galactic lense, the internal area of the galaxy is increasing and changing the focal interaction or focal depth of lenset.

example
imagine a primary lense in a telescope.
and a seconary lense in a telescope
slide the primary lense closer to the seconardary lense
you get optical contraction of objects,
the objects "appair" to get closer together
now slide the primary lens further away from the seconary lense,
and objects appair to get further away from each other,




could a shifting lens account for perceived cosmological expansion?

xploder


edit on 14-4-2011 by XPLodER because: edit for spelling



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


thanks for the numbers and the corrections

there is something wrong with the model of cosmological expansion

i keep coming accross the same problems,
light is the medium for veiwing these galaxies
light can be effected by
gravity
medium density
refractivity
plasma
interstella medium
intergalactic medium
intense cold
intense hot
astro spheres
galactic lenses
cluster lenses
super cluster lenses

and we are in a bubble in a medium that is surprisingly dense and much more magnetic than expected,
to discount the effect of the medium light travels in necesatates an expanding universe full of strange matter and dark energy but entirely misses the fact that we ultimatly are measuring light and observing light from distent sources.

IMHO
the obvious effects of "optical medium density refraction" in my opinion is the source of the perceived expansion we observe and the fact that hubbles constant keeps changing is because the galactic lens is varying in expansion speed.

xploder



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


That's what I think of every single time I look up into the sky.
"The galaxy I just saw on that picture."
"What is it now?"
I mean 12 billion years, it could be a huge...well... ANYTHING or nothing. We might never know :/ that's what saddens me.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by XPLodER
if i used the wrong example its not to try to mislead just used as an example

how would you explain a fully mature galaxy at z=10.2?

edit to add if you could see it
If I ever see such a thing, that's when I'll start trying to figure out how to explain it. And if I ever see a pink elephant flying, that's when I'll start trying to explain that.

But there are enough things we HAVE seen we're having a hard time explaining (like dark matter/dark energy observations etc) to keep us busy, without worrying about tying to explain things we haven't seen yet.

If you find evidence of a fully mature galaxy at redshift 10.2, post it, as I'd be interested to see the evidence, and yes, I'd have to think about the explanation.


found smething here on ats

heres the source
galaxy cluster at the edge of the 13.4 billion year old universe

Extended blobs discovered thus far have mostly been seen at a distance when the universe was 2 to 3 billion years old. No extended blobs have previously been found when the universe was younger.

"We hesitated to spend our precious telescope time by taking spectra of this weird candidate. We never believed that this bright and large source was a real distant object. We thought it was a foreground interloper contaminating our galaxy sample," continued Ouchi. "But we tried anyway. Then, the spectra exhibited a characteristic hydrogen signature clearly indicating a remarkably large distance—12.9 billion light years!"




link here

looks like there are objects we can measure that violate the age of the universe acording to the big bang cosmology

xploder



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join