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 LifeInDeath
Originally posted by jiggerj
I agree, only those dots have to be set in a circle around where the singularity burst. Now if you blow up the balloon you will see the dots moving away from where the singularity originated.
No, the dots are more or less uniform in their arrangement (or at least they started off that way). In the real world those "dots" (matter) also have gravity, so they tend to clump up over time in spots, but on average they are all still expanding away from each other.
You could also think of it as squeezing a sponge as tightly as you possibly can to represent all the matter compressed into one single point. Then let go of the sponge and it will expand outwards in all directions. The structure of the sponge is the matter getting pushed outwards and taking up more space, but it's all still the same amount of matter and from inside the sponge every piece of that sponge/matter seems to be expanding away from every other piece.edit on 7/5/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)
You're essentially arguing for the steady state universe, as favoured by Fred Hoyle and others.
If the universe is infinite, and not expanding, gravity would have caused all galaxies to merge an infinite time ago.
Which means the universe must be expanding (or even contracting) - but not static.
I don't really care about your answer actually, I'm sure it will be some more nonsense regarding something some dude said in the Bible, right after God conjures up a few rainbows.
Originally posted by jiggerj
And your deductive reasoning is, a god did it all? I say this with a giggle: Are you insane?
Originally posted by Aim64C
Now inflate that balloon and all those little dots will start to move away from each other as the balloon expands.
Taking that as the analogy...
What is "breathing" into the universe?
What is the "rubber" between the dots on the balloon? What is stretching, aside from arbitrary numbers and concepts?
Same number of dots, same amount of matter, but it gets farther apart as the balloon/Universe gets bigger.
I find this suspect.
Quantum mechanics doesn't play too well with this idea that space can be arbitrarily inflated. It can be argued that quantized states -create- space (and even further argued through the concept of energy-information equivalence and the holographic principle).
Equations of motion given by General Relativity, which has passed a large number of experimental tests now even though it is conceptually pretty radical.
These aren't arbitrary numbers and concepts---the whole kibosh has concrete experimental & observational consequences.
Space itself can be squeezed and pushed and we have laws of physics which appear to govern how it works.
It would be roughly analogous to dark energy, the force that's causing the Universe to expand, but really you are taking the analogy a bit too far.
I was mainly trying to illustrate how when space expands, all of the matter in that space will all move away from all of the other matter. The surface of the balloon is like a two-dimensional universe, though (ignore the space inside the balloon it only confuses the issue). You just have to apply the same idea to three dimensions to make sense of it in our Universe.
The rubber is space.
Basically, the idea that the Universe might operate more like a computer simulation than a real place is very disconcerting and I don't pretend to truly fathom all of it, even if that's what some things seem to keep saying in physics. I want to be real, not a simulation.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
could it be because the images we view of galaxies are like long exposure photos,,,, where as the galaxy is actually spinning very vast?
Originally posted by jiggerj
I find it hard to conceptualize a sponge or (another analogy I've heard) a loaf of raisin bread. The sponge is one material and it is one mass. The universe is made up of non-connected material (planets, galaxies...).
As for the raisin bread analogy, if the bread dough was inflating evenly between each raisin, then no raisin would ever collide with another raisin. Yet, as Imafungi pointed out, galaxies are colliding with one another.
Originally posted by Aim64C
There's a lot of presumptions involved in this theory... when the more simple theory is that a property of light makes it attenuate over large amounts of space (a theory very difficult to test in the ridiculously short confines of our solar system).
What is space?
How does it expand? What field... what particle... what ... thing does dark energy act upon?
That's what I'm getting at. We don't even have a good definition of space... let alone can we begin to define how it would go about expanding.
What is real?
Socrates pondered over this considerably, coming to the conclusion: "I think, therefor I am." You choose to do with your experience what you will. If you treat it as real (and those around you as real) then it is as good as real.
In my opinion - you are not sentient until you've encountered the question of reality and come out of it with an answer that replaces the discomfort with understanding that you can't know but choose to accept or reject what is before you.
Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by Awen24
The discovery in the article you linked to will actually add to our knowledge of the early universe, and help us understand how the first galaxies formed. How did you come to the conclusion that it somehow disproves the big bang theory itself?
Originally posted by Lionhearte
People still believe in the Big Bang? It's completely outdated, totally impossible, illogical, non scientifical and nonsensical and is only even feasible as a mathematical equation on a piece of paper, if hardly. Yet if you ask a believer of this dying faith they will ask you to ignore the "small problem" of something coming out from nothing, and look at the rest of the theory, which is also has some problems.. and more problems. Then more problems arise with the theory.
People just look at the so-called "proof" via interpretations of observational data that do not relate to reality. Microwaves MUST mean that everything was once in one spot that exploded/expanded? Red Shifts MUST indicate greater velocity the older the light is from ever farther objects away from Earth?
Where are our free thinkers?
You guys can believe whatever you want, and state whatever opinion you'd like. My opinion is this - Stop making false assumptions and interpretations and use your deductive reasoning abilities to understand that this never has nor ever will be proven as a viable theory.
Originally posted by Ilyich
reply to post by jiggerj
We are physically incapable of locating the true center of the universe, because we can not observe the entire universe. How is one to decipher where we are in the puzzle with out first seeing all the other pieces. The universe can only be estimated and even at that it's just a guess.. Until, we become capable of interstellar travel, or trans-universal travel, we may never truly know.
Originally posted by VoidHawk
Originally posted by jiggerj
shouldn't there be a void where the Big Bang actually occurred?
Yep, its where I live.
VoidHawk
Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by Kryties
Lol. Sure, call yourself "rational" and "logical" all you want. Doesn't make it so. I call your beliefs a religion, because it requires faith. Your deity is called "Chance" and "Time" and with them, all things are possible. They have brought us to where we are today, according to your very own religion.
What evidence is there, exactly, of the Big Bang?
As far as I know, there are dozens and dozens of issues with the entire theory that any logical and rational person would realize, and since you claim you are such a thinker, this shouldn't be a problem for you.
For one, you should know that static universe models fit observational data better than the expanding universe models, as they match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but ONLY with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. This essentially falsifies the theory. Hell, even if the discrepancies could be explained (though, that does require a problem for you), Occam's razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters.
Secondly, our most distant galaxies visible (using the Hubble Deep Field) reveal insufficient evidence/proof of evolution, with some of them having higher Red shifts (z=6-7) than the highest Red Shift QSOs. Essentially, with the Big Bang theory, all stars/quasars/galaxies/celestial bodies should be "primitive", meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. Except, latest evidence suggests lots of metal are found in the (supposedly) earliest QSOs, there's a full review of that here.
I don't really care about your answer actually, I'm sure it will be some more nonsense regarding something some dude said in the Bible, right after God conjures up a few rainbows.
Okay?
Originally posted by jiggerj
And your deductive reasoning is, a god did it all? I say this with a giggle: Are you insane?
The creation needs a creator. Would you laugh at someone who claims a watchmaker made their watch, calling them insane? Based off your logic, I suppose you would. And that, friend, would make you mentally unstable, as most people would agree. At least, those who have a working 3 lb brain.edit on 5-7-2012 by Lionhearte because: (no reason given)
The raisins inside the loaf of raisin bread are separate masses from each other. The dough/bread/sponge is equivalent to space. Forget about the mass of the dough/bread/sponge and imagine that only as the medium of space which expands.
Originally posted by Mapkar
reply to post by jiggerj
Theoretically bangs we think of leave holes, but I think (in my limited knowledge of astrophysics) the big bang was the "source" of all material. That mans it'd be more like dropping a water balloon onto the floor and looking at the puddle rather than a bullet in glass. For the bullet analogue to work there would have to be something for the big bang's initial point to smack and shatter. But remember the big bang says all things came from it, so there's nothing to shatter. I think the water balloon would yield the more similar result, an expanding puddle and a solid center.