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: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Take the CMB. Main evidence for the big bang as oft cited. If you wake up in a tent and everything around you is white, you don't conclude you've seen the start of the universe. You conclude you're in fog.


This is quite possibly one of the stupidest analogies I have ever heard. Do you have any idea what the CMB even is??

Here's a better analogy:
Suppose you wake up around you are surrounded by radiation, and, being a scientist, not an idiot at all, you measure the angular power distribution, and plot it against the l(l+1) spherical harmonic terms in its harmonic expansion and find it looks like


Then, still not being an idiot, you calculate using general relativity, knowing that it describes everything, what the power spectrum of an initial gas of photons would have looked like in the early universe, and time evolve it to the present time. Then, shockingly, you find:

It agrees with the data perfectly! (Being a good scientist, you took the data more than a half dozen times with different methodologies and different equipment to be really sure you didn't screw it up.)

Then, yes, you would come to the conclusion you've seen something about the early universe.

But hey, don't let me dissuade you from thinking science is not about childish examples or anything.


As is the idea of energy from nothing. Something from nothing, fine. Energy from nothing, no. Einstein would be turning in his grave.


Said by someone who I have no doubt could quote, of the top of his head, and indeed, derive completely, the equations for the covariant local conservation of energy in general relativity and explain exactly what they mean; and could then proceed to derive several of relativity's energy conditions and describe in detail where they came from and what sources of matter satisfy or don't satisfy them, through a detailed calculation from their stress-energy tensors.

What's that? You can't do that? Not at all? Don't even know what those words mean? Dear me, it seems I have greatly misjudged you!



There will be some sort of tired light effect that can explain redshifts.


...speaking of conservation of energy...



Likewise a local plasma explanation for the CMB, either from stellar formation processes or synchrotron radiation from plasma filaments and interstellar/galactic birkeland currents capable of producing the same linear morphologies we see in the CMB. Loads of things in space emit the microwave spectrum.


And all it takes is for just one one of those things to invert the polarity of the neutron beams and reroute power through the main deflector dish, and, viola, just like putting too much air in a balloon!




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

and yes im used to viewing it that way,,,,, only cuz einstein relativity space time grid videos,,,, and celestial bodies as trampolines,,,,,
im saying if space is not made anything how does it have any properties such as curve?


Because it can and does, that's what space is. For more information you'd have to be versed in manifolds and differential geometry, I'm afraid. Space can be curved in the same way that the space that is the surface of the earth is curved.



is gravity a rip tide from massive bodies that pulls anything near them, like a tornado,,,.., and this torsion of space is what gives spaces its electric and magnetic charged, curving capabilities?


Well, space can't have a magnetic or electric charge. It can however be twisted in the way you describe.



you say space is made of space,,,,, is it something tangible,,,,,, real in any way other then; there is black distance between us and other large objects?
edit on 7-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Yeah, it's tangible. Just in the same way that you could tell the surface of the earth is curved and not flat, you can tell the same thing about space in general. But it's not "made of" anything other than space. It's just space. Space can be curved.
edit on 7-7-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by wireheadIt's so remarkably the same throughout the entire sky that it only varies by one tenth of a percent over the entire field of view. If this was due to something local- within our galaxy or near the earth- there is no possible way for it to be that constant in every direction we look.


To make a non smart-ass comment today, it is worth pointing out that the actual fluctuation size, deltaT / T, is of order 10^-6. One in a million. That's crazy tiny.

The CMB is by far the most perfect black body spectrum observed.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by wireheadIt's so remarkably the same throughout the entire sky that it only varies by one tenth of a percent over the entire field of view. If this was due to something local- within our galaxy or near the earth- there is no possible way for it to be that constant in every direction we look.


To make a non smart-ass comment today, it is worth pointing out that the actual fluctuation size, deltaT / T, is of order 10^-6. One in a million. That's crazy tiny.

The CMB is by far the most perfect black body spectrum observed.


Ah, my bad. I went looking for a figure and couldn't find it. I had originally written that it was a thousandth of a percent but couldn't source it.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

ok so the only way it is related to the physical universe is that the distance between matter increases..... thats the only aspect,,,,,, the rest has no relation to the physical universe,,,,,,, and the balloon analogy might as well be the the analogy you used with the flat rubber from the balloon..


Yep, that's pretty much it.

In fact, even better than the flat rubber analogy would be a transparent rubber cube. The cube itself represents 3D space, and let's say it has random objects stuck in it. Now, you and 7 friends put hooks in the corners and pull, stretching the cube in every direction. That's pretty much what's happening to space, except the expansion force isn't a pull from the outside, it's a push from the inside.

And that rubber cube doesn't represent the entire universe. It just represents a single section of space. In fact, it can represent any and every section of space, because the same thing is happening everywhere. At every point in space, a force is pushing outward on every point surrounding it.

Now, as a side note, two minor things need to be explained:
I keep calling it a force, but it's not...it's pressure, acting opposite the universe's positive energy density;
and that pressure doesn't actually act on every point in the universe. Gravity/the presence of matter counteracts the expansion, which is why structures in the universe can exist without being expanded apart.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamhobo
The Big Bang couldn't have occured unless the universe existed inside of another space. Hence, in order to have an explosion, it must occur within an already existing area.

Unless of course, the law of physics isn't really a law to begin with.


So in other words, you support a multiverse theory? Interesting. I find that theory compelling as well. What an exciting time we live in



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


Maybe I am too dense to understand, but I watched this video several times, and I still do not understand why there can't be a central point, where the expansion of the universe started.

By blowing up the baloon, with the galaxies drawn on the surface, yes all the galaxies are moving away from each other. I still conclude there is a central point. For exspansion to occur there has to be a starting point.

Blow up a baloon, there will always be a central point of exspansion, no matter if the ballon expands forever.

I sort of agree with another poster who said, people who have spent their entire lives telling us that this is how the universe came into exsistence, will most likely go to their grave, holding on to what they have been taught, and what they have taught others.

If there was a big bang, as we have been taught, and told,over and over, there has to be a central point of exspansion, or the theory of the big bang did not happen.

I am trying to be as open minded about this as possible, but just as there are laws of physics that cannot change, why should common sense be thrown out the window when making observations of anything?

All the mathematical calculations, with all the unlimited number of variables that can be used to get any answer you are looking for, and all the woo-woo words and hypotheical theories, still cannot change reality.

Thanks to all that have participated in this conversation.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by zeta55
 





By blowing up the baloon, with the galaxies drawn on the surface, yes all the galaxies are moving away from each other. I still conclude there is a central point.


Where on the surface of the baloon is the central point located then?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by zeta55
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


Maybe I am too dense to understand, but I watched this video several times, and I still do not understand why there can't be a central point, where the expansion of the universe started.

By blowing up the baloon, with the galaxies drawn on the surface, yes all the galaxies are moving away from each other. I still conclude there is a central point. For exspansion to occur there has to be a starting point.

Blow up a baloon, there will always be a central point of exspansion, no matter if the ballon expands forever.

If the Universe if finite then technically there would be some spot out there somewhere that is the geo-spacial center of everything, however it really wouldn't matter that it is because the way the Universe looks from that point would be the same as it looks from every other point. An observer on a world that just happens to be at the geo-spacial center of everything would see essentially the same sort of thing we are seeing. That point in the Universe wouldn't be any more special than any other, beyond the happy accident that it's right at the center of everything. No one on that world could know that they were at the center of everything because their observations would look just like ours. There would be no hole there, no great void things have been blasted away from, just stars and gas and galaxies just as we see them.

The observable Universe is thought to be something like 1/90th of size of the actual Universe, assuming it is finite. All we can see of the Universe, called the observable universe, is about 93 billion light years in diameter, and that is all we will ever be able to see of it probably (unless we significantly break the light speed barrier somehow):



Somewhere in that sphere that is 90 or so times the volume of the sphere we can see would be a point that is the center, but it's kind of pointless to worry about it because fundamentally conditions there would be the same as they are here.

If space is infinite then there is no center. You can't have a center to Infinity.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by ImaFungi

ok so the only way it is related to the physical universe is that the distance between matter increases..... thats the only aspect,,,,,, the rest has no relation to the physical universe,,,,,,, and the balloon analogy might as well be the the analogy you used with the flat rubber from the balloon..


Yep, that's pretty much it.

In fact, even better than the flat rubber analogy would be a transparent rubber cube. The cube itself represents 3D space, and let's say it has random objects stuck in it. Now, you and 7 friends put hooks in the corners and pull, stretching the cube in every direction. That's pretty much what's happening to space, except the expansion force isn't a pull from the outside, it's a push from the inside.

And that rubber cube doesn't represent the entire universe. It just represents a single section of space. In fact, it can represent any and every section of space, because the same thing is happening everywhere. At every point in space, a force is pushing outward on every point surrounding it.

Now, as a side note, two minor things need to be explained:
I keep calling it a force, but it's not...it's pressure, acting opposite the universe's positive energy density;
and that pressure doesn't actually act on every point in the universe. Gravity/the presence of matter counteracts the expansion, which is why structures in the universe can exist without being expanded apart.


What you argue is exactly what we argued about in a different topic. But you did not agree with me.

But on topic. If the finite dimensions are expanding outwards. You will at some point end up with a single dimension if you reverse the expansion. This single dimension would be a singularity (a single mass).

This single mass would not be all that there is. Because to have this single mass; a void must have been compressed to form this single mass.

When you compress something (a void) into a single mass, energies/particles are also released outwards. That means the singularity will already be surrounded by expanding energies. The singularity will be surrounded by expanding time. Before the single mass it self begins to expand outwards.

In this situation we have two different types of time. A compression time line and a expansion time line. At the same time.

This will go on until the expanding energies from the compression form's a space with a great enough differential pressure, for the single mass to cool down and expand.










edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

What you argue is exactly what we argued about in a different topic. But you did not agree with me.


How so? You were arguing that infinite space is a single dimension...or something of that nature. What I'm saying here is consistent with what I was saying there.



But on topic. If the finite dimensions are expanding outwards. You will at some point end up with a single dimension if you reverse the expansion. This single dimension would be a singularity (a single mass).


This is right, at least.



This single mass would not be all that there is. Because to have this single mass; a void must have been compressed to form this single mass.

When you compress something (a void) into a single mass, energies/particles are also released outwards. That means the singularity will already be surrounded by expanding energies. The singularity will be surrounded by expanding time. Before the single mass it self begins to expand outwards.

In this situation we have two different types of time. A compression time line and a expansion time line. At the same time.

This will go on until the expanding energies from the compression form's a space with a great enough differential pressure, for the single mass to cool down and expand.


This, I'm not too sure about. Can you explain why this would happen?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
"Big Bang - Where's the hole?"

Where the sun don't shine?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 






This single mass would not be all that there is. Because to have this single mass; a void must have been compressed to form this single mass.

When you compress something (a void) into a single mass, energies/particles are also released outwards. That means the singularity will already be surrounded by expanding energies. The singularity will be surrounded by expanding time. Before the single mass it self begins to expand outwards.

In this situation we have two different types of time. A compression time line and a expansion time line. At the same time.

This will go on until the expanding energies from the compression form's a space with a great enough differential pressure, for the single mass to cool down and expand.


This, I'm not too sure about. Can you explain why this would happen?



If you pack a void/energy with a force until it becomes a solid mass. You cannot do so without releasing energy form the process. You cannot compress anything into a solid mass and still conserve all energies within the mass.

The compression process it self would need a energy of motion to compress. It would need to consume/use energy.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Take the CMB. Main evidence for the big bang as oft cited. If you wake up in a tent and everything around you is white, you don't conclude you've seen the start of the universe. You conclude you're in fog.


This is quite possibly one of the stupidest analogies I have ever heard. Do you have any idea what the CMB even is??

Here's a better analogy:
Suppose you wake up around you are surrounded by radiation, and, being a scientist, not an idiot at all, you measure the angular power distribution, and plot it against the l(l+1) spherical harmonic terms in its harmonic expansion and find it looks like


Then, still not being an idiot, you calculate using general relativity, knowing that it describes everything, what the power spectrum of an initial gas of photons would have looked like in the early universe, and time evolve it to the present time. Then, shockingly, you find:

It agrees with the data perfectly! (Being a good scientist, you took the data more than a half dozen times with different methodologies and different equipment to be really sure you didn't screw it up.)

Then, yes, you would come to the conclusion you've seen something about the early universe.

But hey, don't let me dissuade you from thinking science is not about childish examples or anything.


As is the idea of energy from nothing. Something from nothing, fine. Energy from nothing, no. Einstein would be turning in his grave.


Said by someone who I have no doubt could quote, of the top of his head, and indeed, derive completely, the equations for the covariant local conservation of energy in general relativity and explain exactly what they mean; and could then proceed to derive several of relativity's energy conditions and describe in detail where they came from and what sources of matter satisfy or don't satisfy them, through a detailed calculation from their stress-energy tensors.

What's that? You can't do that? Not at all? Don't even know what those words mean? Dear me, it seems I have greatly misjudged you!



There will be some sort of tired light effect that can explain redshifts.


...speaking of conservation of energy...



Likewise a local plasma explanation for the CMB, either from stellar formation processes or synchrotron radiation from plasma filaments and interstellar/galactic birkeland currents capable of producing the same linear morphologies we see in the CMB. Loads of things in space emit the microwave spectrum.


And all it takes is for just one one of those things to invert the polarity of the neutron beams and reroute power through the main deflector dish, and, viola, just like putting too much air in a balloon!


Thanks for the info, I liked your post, you trumped mine.

I'd like to have a one to one chat arranged with me and you so we get a better sound to noise ratio and I can actually get down the interpretations of the data and their (supposed) cosmological relevance in more detail.

And your wrong. I did not make those statements lightly. The plasma filament theory was proposed for a local explanation for the CMB, made predictions, peer reviewed in a prestigious journal, and the data agreed with its predictions to a smaller error bound than BBT predicted. Likewise there are another three plasma related ones with similar findings. Gerrit Verchuurs plasma based one is another, which didn't prove too fruitful statistically, as another example, but theres a definite trend emerging in which its only a matter of time. Local correlates do seem to be encroaching on the cosmological significance of the CMB.
edit on 7-7-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 



Is there a theory of a property of light to account for this?


Logically, there doesn't have to be. However, there is:

phys.org...

I was unaware of this study until a few minutes ago - and what I've read of it is very interesting. It basically refutes the idea that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate (though metric expansion of space is still implied - classical motion can largely account for this as opposed to arbitrary alterations of space).


What else could red-shift all those galaxies besides the Doppler effect?


Logically, this does not have to be answered. Experiments would have to verify red shift of light to be a reliable indication of velocity and distance at scale. Obviously - this is very difficult to do with our engineering and technological capabilities. Which is why I find it difficult to respect any individual who claims to be capable of knowing much about the cosmos - much less when they claim to know its origins or ultimate fate.


Yes, these things are still mysterious and no I don't have an answer for you, nobody does.


Then why tout the theory about as if it were fact?

If you can't answer the most basic questions about it - then it's little better than the magichanics of mystics. Indeed - physicists create "dark matter" and "dark energy" to explain inconsistencies within their models. The observational data supporting the premise of their theory is given far too much credence considering its nature - and the theory is touted as fact while millions go into wild goose chases for constructs of modeling convenience as opposed to experimentally demonstrated gaps in physics.


It's all well and good to say that we're misreading the observations, and that may be the case, but just saying "light works differently over a billion light years than it does over a hundred light years" is not good enough unless you've got some math to support it. Show me the theories if they are out there, I'd be interested to read about them.


Again - see above.

The problem with your line of thinking, however, is that you're not being rational.

Where's the evidence for dark matter? Dark energy? ... Physicists can't even BEGIN to show you mathematical calculations showing how space would metrically expand (nothing that fits in with experimentally validated models of physics, at least).

The ONLY thing we have supporting metric expansion is red-shift.

Occam's razor... which idea makes the fewest suppositions? That light doesn't behave as expected over millions/billions of light years... or that space expands (no idea how, it just does so arbitrarily) with the help of an elusive source of energy more powerful than the observable universe?

Logically, rationally - it is more probable that there is a flaw in our understanding of light in this situation than a whole class of new energies and magichanics that need to be wedged into our existing models.

That said - I'm a rational person. I will buy metric expansion if it can be experimentally verified or collaborated with multiple systems of direct and indirect measurement (such as triangulation).

I recognize that all of us will probably be long gone by time that is a scientific and engineering practicality - and as such see no reason to so avidly defend what cannot be adequately tested in today's time. "Hold that thought." Is the proper response to theories such as metric expansion and others. It's an idea to keep in our minds as we interpret new data - but it's not something to stake much claim on.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


"Yeah, it's tangible. Just in the same way that you could tell the surface of the earth is curved and not flat, you can tell the same thing about space in general. But it's not "made of" anything other than space. It's just space. Space can be curved."

yupp thats my biggest problem,..,,.,.. if its not made of anything,,, it does not exist,,,,, if space is infinite,, to me thats the same as space not existing at all,,,,, and all that exists is the relatively massive amount of energy that is physical universe and its reactions with each other at high speeds and force and "distance".,,.,.,.

the surface of the earth can be curved because it is a 3d object,,, a shape,.,.,.. space is not an object or shape,.,.,., maybe when physical items interact with other physical items they move and are viewed in weird ways because the distance,, movement and forces of these physical items,,, like maybe space doesnt actually curve,,, but from earth we can only view things and receive external information via a curve because of our rotation and revolution and constant movement in 4th dimension,.,.,.,.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by wireheadIt's so remarkably the same throughout the entire sky that it only varies by one tenth of a percent over the entire field of view. If this was due to something local- within our galaxy or near the earth- there is no possible way for it to be that constant in every direction we look.


To make a non smart-ass comment today, it is worth pointing out that the actual fluctuation size, deltaT / T, is of order 10^-6. One in a million. That's crazy tiny.

The CMB is by far the most perfect black body spectrum observed.


it cant be because energy has been used and distributed throughout the universe at all times of its expansion,,,, meaning the cmb is not only from billions of years ago,,,,, but is a constant result in the vetting of all energy into all surrounding space?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Each galaxy has their own black hole in my very non-expert opinion. Think of a tidal wave. Comes in with great force, but then gets sucked right back into the central body. Some water gets left behind. Same with black holes, the vaccum created by their explosions sucks most of the matter right back in. The various remnants left are what we know as our galaxies and as a whole our universe. It is all a cycle. How the process began in the first place is what is troubling.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I think it is very embarrasing when someone who has read a few idiotic articles on the internet suddenly gets very opinionated about such a complicated matter as the validity of the big bang theory, vigorously disputing the consensus of an entire scientific community. Unless you have studied the theory in-depth for years just as actual scientists do, you are not entitled to an opinion..


Of course we're entitled to an opinion, as long as we make it clear it's just an opinion. We could have a million physicists telling us the universe is a holographic image, and if your common sense doesn't feel threatened, then all governments are good, Charles Manson is sane, and a gallon of gas is still 99 cents.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by ImaFungi

i guess my argument or confusion,, is that you say space between galaxies expands,, and ripples and curves,,, i guess its never been explained well enough to me what space is made of that allows it to have physical properties such as the ability to expand,, and curve? and originally how there can be a certain distance of space between 2 galaxies,,,, and at a later point in time,,, a greater distance of space between 2 galaxies without the 2 galaxies moving,,,i think that was the original problem,, which then turned into you describing the light and yea..


Space is made of.... space! Einstein's entire genius was in discovering that space itself can bend, warp, expand, contract... You might not be used to thinking of space this way, but it's how space behaves in reality.


and yes im used to viewing it that way,,,,, only cuz einstein relativity space time grid videos,,,, and celestial bodies as trampolines,,,,,
im saying if space is not made anything how does it have any properties such as curve?

is gravity a rip tide from massive bodies that pulls anything near them, like a tornado,,,.., and this torsion of space is what gives spaces its electric and magnetic charged, curving capabilities?

you say space is made of space,,,,, is it something tangible,,,,,, real in any way other then; there is black distance between us and other large objects?
edit on 7-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Thanks for reminding me that space is curved. We know that planets sit in curved space, and we assume that everything was once scrunched down into a singularity. The mass of that singularity had to be massive beyond comprehension. So, did this singularity also sit in a curve of space-time? If not, what was it sitting in?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join