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.

 

Big Bang - Where's the hole?

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


I am interested in your perspective on this matter, could you explain how the patterns we observe could be interpreted differently? I would rather you give your own perspective, of course, instead of links


None of us has access to the "whole" truth innately.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

But a 4D spacetime solution, like the FLRW metric, doesn't have such a point in 3D space.


Which is an interesting point... the same field equations used to model local gravitational effects are also used to model the entire evolution of the universe. Seems very few people truly appreciate (let alone understand) the power of these equations.

And, by the way, I accidentally added you as a rival. But the situation has been rectified.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
To keep with this analogy, the baseballs launched in the direction of the car's motion would be invisible behind the car from your point of view. The one launched toward you would be in front of the car, and have BLUEshift.

The quasar in front of the galaxy is like the baseball launched toward you, yet it has MORE REDSHIFT.

NOTHING IS BLUESHIFTED. The first indicator of how stupid this is. Or else we must be in the exact center of the universe.

And don't even start on the Fingers of God nonsense.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos

Um, proving my point here, not yours. How can the baseball be more redshifted than the car? That IS the point, here.


Exactly as I explained. When the baseball is close to the car but being fired ahead of the car, it will be at the same distance as the car but more redshifted.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by wirehead
 


ok but if the energy of the universe is finite,,,, meaning there are galaxies at an edge ( even if that edge is expanding and the light at that edge travels past the material galaxies closest to the edge) if there is this edge event surrounding the entire scope of the material universe... ( say the edge is represented by the triangles) 3d 4d..... there would be a center.,.,, even if it was never measurable,,,, there would be a relative center.,,., and thats what the title of this thread is asking,,..,,. wouldnt that center be a massive hole...... i have not heard a good enough example of why,,, if the big bang happened,,, and the singularity is not still emitting energy,, why the last energy emitted ( energy furthest from the edges) wouldnt be very far from the point of singularity at this point in time,,,,, and why there wouldnt be energy ( furthest from the edges) closest to the point of singularity around all sides of the center...... assumably creating a vast hole.,..,..,.., maybe the singularity banged with a spin and so the universe is actually locked in a rotation and this vast center hole is a black hole,..,.,.,.,.


Think about a sphere, like the Earth. Where is the edge? There's a surface, sure, but the surface of a 4D sphere is... you guessed it.... 3D space! The "center" is in 4D space, which is spacetime, which means it's not located at a "where" but a "where and when" which is the starting point.



ok,, if that starting point could be measured and labeled and plotted at the beginning of the big bang,,, where would that plotted point be now?



edit on 6-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
To keep with this analogy, the baseballs launched in the direction of the car's motion would be invisible behind the car from your point of view. The one launched toward you would be in front of the car, and have BLUEshift.


Quasars are actually the brightest objects in the entire universe and can shine right through a galaxy. So in the car analogy, it's as if the baseball was bright enough to shine right through the car.

Nevertheless, it doesn't even have to be launched right in front of the car and be blocked from sight- it could, in this analogy, be launched in front of the car at a 45 degree angle and still be more redshifted than the car, and visible from your perspective.

Now, what's this about the "fingers of god?"



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

ok,, if that starting point could be measured and labeled and plotted at the beginning of the big bang,,, where would that plotted point be now?


It is, in some sense, everywhere, but the point is located back in time, from where everything originally expanded. Since everything can be traced back to that point, any given spot in space will have "originated" there, at the "center".

But like I said, it's spacetime so the single, center "point" can't be located anywhere in space but at one point and one time.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by ImaFungi

ok,, if that starting point could be measured and labeled and plotted at the beginning of the big bang,,, where would that plotted point be now?


It is, in some sense, everywhere, but the point is located back in time, from where everything originally expanded. Since everything can be traced back to that point, any given spot in space will have "originated" there, at the "center".

But like I said, it's spacetime so the single, center "point" can't be located anywhere in space but at one point and one time.



if there is an up down left right forward backward.,.,.,., no matter how much time or expansion,,,.,.,.,. there would be a center,,,

if there was infinite space with no matter in it there would be no way to determine a center,,,,,

if there is a finite amount of matter in space,,, there is a relative center in regards to all matter,
edit on 6-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

if there is an up down left right forward backward.,.,.,., no matter how much time or expansion,,,.,.,.,. there would be a center,,,

if there was infinite space with no matter in it there would be no way to determine a center,,,,,

if there is a finite amount of matter in space,,, there is a relative center in regards to all matter,
edit on 6-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


You're picturing a 3D sphere expanding. A 3D sphere would have a center to its expansion, but not located on the 2D surface of the sphere.

We model our spacetime with a 4D expanding sphere. The fourth dimension is time. So, if you are to locate the "center" from which it is expanding, you need to locate it not just in space, but in time. Furthermore, it's not located on the 3D surface of the expanding 4D sphere.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

We model our spacetime with a 4D expanding sphere.


Do we? A spherical spacetime requires an energy density greater than that which we observe. Observation indicates a flat spacetime.

Of course, neither have a true center of expansion located at any spacetime coordinate, but a flat infinite spacetime has no center whatsoever, whereas a spherical spacetime does have an "internal" center (as you mentioned).



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
It is all based on the "redshift equals distance" which is nonsense as well, and has been PROVEN totally wrong many times over. Hundreds of cosmic objects demonstrating higher redshift than objects that are definitely BEHIND them abound. Nobel laureate Halton Arp (once again, way more bigtime than any smartypants on this forum) pointed this out in hundreds of cases. The solution? He was banned from any more telescope time. Essentially, all the "scientists" put their fingers in their ears and said, "Lalalalala, we can't hear you".

Arp is not a Nobel laureate, this is just wrong. He has been awarded a number of other important prizes for some of his work, but the Nobel is not one of them.

As for his views on quasars and galaxies, this work is all based upon observations that were made in the 1960's with equipment that is far, FAR inferior to what we have today. More modern observations have shown his assumptions to be incorrect.


In the entire history of mankind as we know it, EVERYTHING that everyone KNEW has ALWAYS turned out to be wrong. It is the height of hubris to think that everyone was wrong about everything all through the past, but NOW we've got it all figured out.

If all science was proven wrong, then none of the technology we currently have based on this science would work.

For example, Newtonian physics is not wrong, it works and works well enough for all of the space missions we've done to this day. That being said, it does start to break down when dealing with extremely large amounts of gravity and extremely fast speeds. But that's okay, because Einstein came along and explained why. Relativity can be viewed as a refinement of Newtonian physics that explains effects Newton simply had no knowledge of because science hadn't yet progressed to a point where such things could be observed. Newton isn't wrong, nothing he said was overturned, all of his physics still works and is used every day by scientists and engineers the world over. But when we want to start doing things that go beyond Newton, we have to look at Einstein.

That's just how science works. You find an explanation for the universe you can observe. When new observations show you new things you hadn't dreamed could exist, you create new theories and new experiments to test these theories until you find one that works. The new doesn't destroy the old, it just expands upon and refines it.
edit on 7/6/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by wirehead

We model our spacetime with a 4D expanding sphere.


Do we? A spherical spacetime requires an energy density greater than that which we observe. Observation indicates a flat spacetime.

Of course, neither have a true center of expansion located at any spacetime coordinate, but a flat infinite spacetime has no center whatsoever, whereas a spherical spacetime does have an "internal" center (as you mentioned).


Yes, that's a very good point, and I am giving something of a simplified picture. Results from WMAP have constrained the universe to being at least quite nearly flat, and likely completely flat. I just want to convey the essential point, that the "center" of expansion is not located somewhere in our 3D space but some where + when, namely at the initial singularity.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


ok so is the physical universe made up of galaxies? could you say these galaxies are in,, for lack of a better word rows and columns? distances apart, taking up space left right up down backward forward ? and these galaxies are always moving greater distances apart from one another at all times ?

is your only problem with what i am saying the fact that the material universe is always expanding so there is no exact and lasting center point?

what if there was a computer outside the universe that can plot the exact center of the material universe in regards to the entire shape of the universe and this computer refreshed every plancks length of time?

are you also saying by there being know space separating the material that left the singularity in one direction from the material that left the singularity in the complete opposite direction,,, that since the singularity all material has been equal distances apart from each other and expanding at an equal rate from one another,, and this is why there is no central space?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
That's just how science works. You find an explanation for the universe you can observe. When new observations show you new things you hadn't dreamed could exist, you create new theories and new experiments to test these theories until you find one that works. The new doesn't destroy the old, it just expands upon and refines it.
edit on 7/6/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)


Which is why, if we are to supersede the currently accepted cosmological model, it will have to explain at least why everything looks so convincingly as if it all came from an early, hot, dense state and expanded from there. Likely any further refines won't in fact eliminate this description but build upon it.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by wirehead
 


ok so is the physical universe made up of galaxies? could you say these galaxies are in,, for lack of a better word rows and columns? distances apart, taking up space left right up down backward forward ? and these galaxies are always moving greater distances apart from one another at all times ?

is your only problem with what i am saying the fact that the material universe is always expanding so there is no exact and lasting center point?

what if there was a computer outside the universe that can plot the exact center of the material universe in regards to the entire shape of the universe and this computer refreshed every plancks length of time?

are you also saying by there being know space separating the material that left the singularity in one direction from the material that left the singularity in the complete opposite direction,,, that since the singularity all material has been equal distances apart from each other and expanding at an equal rate from one another,, and this is why there is no central space?


Well, you're on the right track. Given the model you propose (galaxies in a grid), try to wind the clock back and find the center point where it's all expanding from.

When everything condenses down to a point, that "center point" is located at a specific time.

Furthermore, since every galaxy in our model has now condensed to that point, it's essentially everywhere. Any given galaxy in any given row and column will have been at that point at that time. That's the "center" from which everything is expanding.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by CaptChaos
 


I am interested in your perspective on this matter, could you explain how the patterns we observe could be interpreted differently? I would rather you give your own perspective, of course, instead of links


None of us has access to the "whole" truth innately.

The redshift equals distance/velocity is the linchpin on which the whole Big Bang theory hangs. If that is not true, then a WHOLE lot of houses of cards come tumbling down. I'm all for the Steady State universe, for starters. No big bang. Goes on forever. We can only see a tiny part of it.

I fully subscribe to the Plasma Cosmology school, or Electric Universe. Explains most of the "baffling" things seen by the Hubble telescope in a simple, easily lab repeatable way, vs. computer simulations and "thought experiments" of insanely complex mathematical equations, that need magical invisible pixie dust and fairy dust thrown in to make them work out.

The progress of human knowledge, and science in particular, has always led to everything becoming simpler and simpler. Once they accepted the fact that the Earth was orbiting the Sun and not vice versa, for example, it suddenly became MUCH SIMPLER to explain the observed motions of the planets, in particular the retrograde motions. Far simpler than the "spheres within spheres" theories that came before, and, like Occam's razor, the simpler explanation is usually the correct one.

The modern tendency of science toward ridiculously complicated equations to explain observations, is NOT evidence of progress. It is DEvolution. Also helps them tell the masses, "It's too complicated for you to understand, you're not smart enough. Leave it to the experts" which is always a recipe for disaster. Kind of like leaving your health up to the government.

The plasma universe makes much more sense, a much simpler explanation for everything. Tiny versions of quasars, pulsars, stars, galaxies, supernovae, nebulae, can all be created in lab experiments with plasma, not theoretical computer models that cannot be tested in any real way.

The plasma cosmology theories may not be correct, in fact it is more likely that, like everything else, they will eventually turn out to be wrong, too. Nevertheless, they do a good job of pointing out how WRONG all the current theories are. And the institutional inertia that is obvious from the way they are shouted down for daring to question anything, is the problem, and in fact the very antithesis of "science" and the scientific method. The very basis of the scientific method is to question everything.

No PhD astronomer is willing to even consider that maybe everything he spent thirty years studying, and his life and livelihood are dedicated to now, could be wrong. That would mean he wasted his whole life. And not just him, all his professors and their professors before him, and the universities, would all have to agree that they've been wasting their time. Ain't gonna happen, no matter how WRONG they are.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
The redshift equals distance/velocity is the linchpin on which the whole Big Bang theory hangs. If that is not true, then a WHOLE lot of houses of cards come tumbling down. I'm all for the Steady State universe, for starters. No big bang. Goes on forever. We can only see a tiny part of it.


Then how do you explain redshift at all? Every possible indicator of distance, whether you're considering angular size of a given galaxy, its brightness, the number counts on the sky, the brightness of known standard candles like cepheid variables or supernovae or red sequences of stars, all indicate that the further an object is from us, the more redshifted it is. So how to explain this? Or do you not accept it?




No PhD astronomer is willing to even consider that maybe everything he spent thirty years studying, and his life and livelihood are dedicated to now, could be wrong. That would mean he wasted his whole life. And not just him, all his professors and their professors before him, and the universities, would all have to agree that they've been wasting their time. Ain't gonna happen, no matter how WRONG they are.


Actually, if they could find that what they'd learned was wrong (and prove it with evidence and observation) then they could revolutionize our understanding of the universe and potentially win a nobel prize! Who wouldn't want that?

There probably isn't an astronomer alive who hasn't considered the idea that dark matter isn't real; however there are a hell of a lot of observations to explain away if that's the case. But if it's not real, and you can prove it, then by all means, accept your inevitable praise and place in the history books!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
the Universe isn't "pulling from the center," the Universe is pulling in all directions at once. Every part of it is pulling away from every other part of it.


Say it ain't so! lol

I thought all the galaxies were moving further and further away from each other in one direction, outward? If the dark energy is filling in the space between galaxies from all directions, then the galaxies wouldn't be moving at all. Example: The space between two galaxies is filling in, pushing them away from each other. But wait! The space between one of those galaxies and the NEXT galaxy is also filling in, pushing back against the force between the first two galaxies. I dunno.

First, not ALL galaxies, but most galaxies are moving away from us. Andromeda, our closest galactic neighbor will collide with us in about 4 or 5 billion years, that is due to gravity pulling us together. This is how galactic clusters and superclusters form. You can have dozens, hundreds and even thousands of galaxies getting closer to each other in this way, but when you compare that to the billions of galaxies that are moving away from us it's a drop in the bucket.

From our point of view, these billions of galaxies are moving away from us. From the point of view of an observer in one of those billions of galaxies, the very same would be true. From everybody's point of view in the Universe, most other galaxies are moving away from them. There's no "outward," even if it might appear that way.

The dark energy isn't "filling in space" between the galaxies, it is expanding/stretching the space that's already there. Again, there's no "push," as I explained earlier, the space is just getting more spread out.

At this point I'm thinking maybe you are just having a really hard time visualizing these things that we've tried describing in words. You might want to go you your local Rite-Aide, or Walmart or whatever, buy a cheap pack of balloons and a permanent marker and try the dots/balloon experiment. I think if you just see this in action it might start to make more sense to you. The whole endeavor should probably cost you just a few bucks. Another, even cheaper option, watch this video:




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The vast majority of the universe is invisible to us and will be for all time.

From Wikipedia - Observable Universe


In Big Bang cosmology, the observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that humans can in principle observe from Earth in the present day, because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach us since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction—that is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe which may or may not overlap with the one centered on the Earth.



The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years), putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.


So in essence, the center of the universe, where the Big Bang originated, is most likely well outside of the Observable Universe.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


Someone should have posted that video back on page 1 and saved everyone the trouble!



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join