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.
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.
As is the idea of energy from nothing. Something from nothing, fine. Energy from nothing, no. Einstein would be turning in his grave.
There will be some sort of tired light effect that can explain redshifts.
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by spy66
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.
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?
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!
Is there a theory of a property of light to account for this?
What else could red-shift all those galaxies besides the Doppler effect?
Yes, these things are still mysterious and no I don't have an answer for you, nobody does.
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.
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.
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..
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)