Big Bang - Where's the hole?

reply to post by zeta55


Look at my post above:

Take a configuration of three points, A B and C:

Now scale the image up:

Now whether you were standing on A, B or C, you'd have seen the other two points move away from you- hence they would appear redshifted from your point of view.

This is analogous to the expansion of space, and as you see here there doesn't need to be a "central point" or hole.

Originally posted by Hawkmoon1972
reply to post by CaptChaos

 

Can we see your proof? Since you are taking a strongly opposing view of an accepted theory please give us data to back it up.

Let me quote Edwin Hubble. Once again, probably knows more about this than anyone on a conspiracy forum.

"If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time." (MNRAS, 17, 506, 1937)

Three years ago, the XMM Newton orbiting x-ray telescope witnessed a galaxy ejecting two high redshift quasars. Early in the 24- hour observation of the active nucleus of NGC 3516, it recorded a flare, much like a solar flare but ten trillion times as powerful. Then two high redshift regions appeared on opposite sides of the galactic nucleus. One side featured a spike in redshift and the other side a similar dip in redshift--as if one spot were moving away from us and the other coming toward us at about one tenth the speed of light.


If you are ready for more than a little light reading, here's some data for you, in a published paper footnoted up the wazoo:

iopscience.iop.org...

How about a highly redshifted quasar in front of a galaxy with less redshift? According to the theory, the quasar should be NINETY TIMES as far away as the galaxy behind it.

arxiv.org...

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 wirehead
reply to post by zeta55

 

Look at my post above:

Take a configuration of three points, A B and C:

Now scale the image up:

Now whether you were standing on A, B or C, you'd have seen the other two points move away from you- hence they would appear redshifted from your point of view.

This is analogous to the expansion of space, and as you see here there doesn't need to be a "central point" or hole.

if you drew a line from each of those points to towards the center of the triangle,,, you wouldnt be able to determine what is known as a center?

Originally posted by CaptChaos
"If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time." (MNRAS, 17, 506, 1937)

Well, Hubble was writing nearly 75 years ago. You should get your information about cosmology from more recent sources, there have been dramatic changes in our knowledge in the intervening time.

Three years ago, the XMM Newton orbiting x-ray telescope witnessed a galaxy ejecting two high redshift quasars. Early in the 24- hour observation of the active nucleus of NGC 3516, it recorded a flare, much like a solar flare but ten trillion times as powerful. Then two high redshift regions appeared on opposite sides of the galactic nucleus. One side featured a spike in redshift and the other side a similar dip in redshift--as if one spot were moving away from us and the other coming toward us at about one tenth the speed of light.

How does this relate to the standard model of cosmology? We know that velocity is related to redshift.... What is your point?

How about a highly redshifted quasar in front of a galaxy with less redshift? According to the theory, the quasar should be NINETY TIMES as far away as the galaxy behind it.

Redshift is not entirely due to distance but to velocity. Since things further and further away are generally moving faster and faster away from us, we can say that space must be expanding. But things can also be moving, on top of their recession velocity. That is what we are seeing here.

reply to post by wirehead


Yes, point a,b, and c,are moving away from each other. If a, b, and c, all originated from the same spot...ie, the point of the big bang, that point would not change.

If the big bang has any truth to it, there has to be a single point, from which every thing is moving away from.

Yes, a,b, and c, would always move away from each other, if they were not at the single point of exspansion.

The fact that things are moving away from each other is no problem to me. I still conclude there has to be a single point of exspansion, that should be there, to this day.

My biggest problem with the big bang theory, is we are to somehow believe, all the matter of the universe was compressed into an area smaller than a single atom.

Your previous reference to gravity being a theory, at least common sense can grasp the concept of gravity. Mass attracts mass. The more mass, the more mass is attracted to it. That is not hard to understand. I have no problem in believing in black holes. I can see where so much mass is in one place, that light can not escape.

Even though we can't "see" a black hole, we can see the effects of it on nearby stars.

So if I am to believe all the matter of the universe was squished into an area smaller than an atom, then even one super massive black hole must be billions of times smaller than a single atom.

I just do not see how it is possible. Why do scientists firmly believe that it was all contained in an area smaller than an atom? What is the basis for this?

I could possibly believe the entire universe was at one time compressed into the area of maybe one galaxy, because there is possibly enough empty space to be compressed, to hold all the molecules, and atoms of the universe.

I will never believe it was all contained in an infinitely small space, unless I throw out all logical reasoning, and conclude, like the song says....row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream. peace

reply to post by wirehead


"Since things further and further away are generally moving faster and faster away from us, we can say that space must be expanding."

does this take into account our movement as well?

if we view something further away from us,.,,,. and then view it again much later,,,, we will also have moved a great distance,,,,, so it can seem like what we are viewing sped up,,, but really the distances just exponentially changed in the same amount of time..... depending on the direction we are traveling as well....

Originally posted by zeta55
reply to post by wirehead

 

I will never believe it was all contained in an infinitely small space, unless I throw out all logical reasoning, and conclude, like the song says....row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream. peace

Actually, all you have to do is take space/matter out of the equation (and therefore time) and voila!

Perhaps of interest is that the behavior we witness in the quantum field could also be related to space-time not being part of the equation, at least as we understand it.

As I said before: "it is important to note that when time is removed from the equation (as well as matter), the implications are not minor."

Not saying that the big bang, etc. are actually what happened, but perhaps your logic has not included all variables

reply to post by ImaFungi


Well, its tricky, innit?

How does one "move" in infinity? The only way to do so is through finite contexts (this could include everything from planets to galaxies to our own mind).

But.. that does not necessarily mean that movement takes place in the "grand scheme." Only in relation to limited functions contained within.

Always enjoy your perspective, by the way.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

if you drew a line from each of those points to towards the center of the triangle,,, you wouldnt be able to determine what is known as a center?

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

You could draw a line from each point to any point in the picture, and they would have been expanding outward from there as well. Any point could be considered the "center", which is the point.

This is just an analogy, it's a 2D picture. The reality is 4D spacetime, so it gets a little more complicated.

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..

HA ha that's a good one. I HAVE been studying this for years. Furthermore, I am just repeating what OTHERS are saying. You know, Nobel prize winning astronomers and their ilk. Crazy, I know. They are not entitled to opinions either, are they?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by wirehead

 

"Since things further and further away are generally moving faster and faster away from us, we can say that space must be expanding."

does this take into account our movement as well?

if we view something further away from us,.,,,. and then view it again much later,,,, we will also have moved a great distance,,,,, so it can seem like what we are viewing sped up,,, but really the distances just exponentially changed in the same amount of time..... depending on the direction we are traveling as well....

Yes, this is exactly right! And we can tell how fast the earth is moving around the sun, and how fast the sun is moving within the milky way, and we can even tell how fast the milky way is moving based on the redshift of the cosmic microwave background.

This does affect the redshift to objects that are really close to us, like the magellanic clouds, or the Andromeda galaxy (our closest galactic neighbor.) In fact, Andromeda is blueshifted!

But, once you get further out- which isn't hard, when we're talking about distances to other galaxies- the velocity due to the hubble flow is much greater than any other velocity involved, and we see a net redshift.

Of course, those galaxies are themselves moving around, so we don't see a perfectly linear relationship between redshift and distance, but when you average over a great many galaxies you do see the clear trend which won Hubble the Nobel prize.

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by CaptChaos
"If the redshifts are a Doppler shift...the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time." (MNRAS, 17, 506, 1937)

How about a highly redshifted quasar in front of a galaxy with less redshift? According to the theory, the quasar should be NINETY TIMES as far away as the galaxy behind it.

Redshift is not entirely due to distance but to velocity. Since things further and further away are generally moving faster and faster away from us, we can say that space must be expanding. But things can also be moving, on top of their recession velocity. That is what we are seeing here.

Ahem. Say that again? In English? Perfect example of refusing to believe what your eyes are seeing. The Quasi-Stellar Object (QUASAR) is supposed to be hundreds of millions of light years further away than the galaxy it is IN FRONT OF. Proving the redshift=distance THEORY to be wrong.

And, the guy who came up with the idea in the first place did not even believe it. Hubble. Not entitled to an opinion, I know.

Originally posted by zeta55
reply to post by wirehead

 

Yes, point a,b, and c,are moving away from each other. If a, b, and c, all originated from the same spot...ie, the point of the big bang, that point would not change.

But there is no center when you think about it in 4D. Yes, A B and C in my diagram would have originated from one spot, but this is a 2D drawing. Even a 3D sphere, like a balloon, would have "originated from one spot." But a 4D spacetime solution, like the FLRW metric, doesn't have such a point in 3D space.

Even if you were at the center of my picture, everything would still look like it's moving away from you. So how could you tell the difference?

The point is that no matter where you are in my picture, it looks like you're "in the center" which is exactly what we see in space.

My biggest problem with the big bang theory, is we are to somehow believe, all the matter of the universe was compressed into an area smaller than a single atom.

Well, yes and no. We don't really know what happened beyond a certain point in our early universe. The "big bang" doesn't really make any claims about that, when you open a real textbook. It's just a description that at earlier eras, the universe was smaller, denser, and really hot.

Your previous reference to gravity being a theory, at least common sense can grasp the concept of gravity. Mass attracts mass. The more mass, the more mass is attracted to it. That is not hard to understand. I have no problem in believing in black holes. I can see where so much mass is in one place, that light can not escape.

So you have no problem with some of science, that's good. My point is that the word "theory" means something different in science than we're used to.

Even though we can't "see" a black hole, we can see the effects of it on nearby stars.

Just as we can see the expansion of the universe!

So if I am to believe all the matter of the universe was squished into an area smaller than an atom, then even one super massive black hole must be billions of times smaller than a single atom.

I just do not see how it is possible. Why do scientists firmly believe that it was all contained in an area smaller than an atom? What is the basis for this?

With our present understanding of general relativity, when you run the clock back far enough that's what you get, and it's kind of unavoidable. But we know that when things get that small (singularities), our picture, strictly speaking, is wrong because it's not a quantum theory of gravity. Hopefully in the future our understanding of physics will be better and we can say more precisely what must have happened back then.

I could possibly believe the entire universe was at one time compressed into the area of maybe one galaxy, because there is possibly enough empty space to be compressed, to hold all the molecules, and atoms of the universe.

I will never believe it was all contained in an infinitely small space, unless I throw out all logical reasoning, and conclude, like the song says....row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream, merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream. peace

Well, a black hole does compress anything in it to an infintesimal point, in our current understanding. If you can compress two atoms together like that, why not any more?

I mean, you're right, there is a problem with the singularity, and we expect that quantum gravity / string theory will resolve it.

But your statement- that the universe was at some point compressed to the size of a galaxy- is essentially the picture in the standard model of cosmology. We can trace it back that far at least. We can also admit that we don't know what came before!

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Ahem. Say that again? In English? Perfect example of refusing to believe what your eyes are seeing. The Quasi-Stellar Object (QUASAR) is supposed to be hundreds of millions of light years further away than the galaxy it is IN FRONT OF. Proving the redshift=distance THEORY to be wrong.

Nope! It can be far away but also moving toward us! If you naievely assume that redshift=distance then yes, you're right, but nobody simply assumes this for this very reason. Redshift does not just equal distance. It equals velocity. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

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,..,.,.,.,.

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.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Ahem. Say that again? In English? Perfect example of refusing to believe what your eyes are seeing. The Quasi-Stellar Object (QUASAR) is supposed to be hundreds of millions of light years further away than the galaxy it is IN FRONT OF. Proving the redshift=distance THEORY to be wrong.

Think about it this way. There's a car driving away from you at 70 miles per hour. It launches a baseball at you at 100 miles per hour- the baseball looks like it's moving toward you at 30 miles per hour and would be blueshifted.

If it launches another baseball at 100 mph forward in its direction of motion, it would look like it's travelling away from you at 170 miles per hour and would be redshifted.

This is what we're seeing in the XMM Newton observation.

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Ahem. Say that again? In English? Perfect example of refusing to believe what your eyes are seeing. The Quasi-Stellar Object (QUASAR) is supposed to be hundreds of millions of light years further away than the galaxy it is IN FRONT OF. Proving the redshift=distance THEORY to be wrong.

Nope! It can be far away but also moving toward us! If you naievely assume that redshift=distance then yes, you're right, but nobody simply assumes this for this very reason. Redshift does not just equal distance. It equals velocity. I'm not sure how else to explain it to you.

Really? So high redshift means it is MOVING TOWARDS US. Ok. I will NAIVELY assume that. Not.

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Ahem. Say that again? In English? Perfect example of refusing to believe what your eyes are seeing. The Quasi-Stellar Object (QUASAR) is supposed to be hundreds of millions of light years further away than the galaxy it is IN FRONT OF. Proving the redshift=distance THEORY to be wrong.

Think about it this way. There's a car driving away from you at 70 miles per hour. It launches a baseball at you at 100 miles per hour- the baseball looks like it's moving toward you at 170 miles per hour and would be blueshifted.

If it launches another baseball at 100 mph forward in its direction of motion, it would look like it's travelling away from you at 30 miles per hour and would be redshifted, but not as redshifted as the car.

If it launches yet another baseball forward at 1000 mph, it would appear to be moving away from you at 930 miles per hour, and it would be redshifted even more than the car.

This is what we're seeing in the XMM Newton observation.

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