It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Galaxies aren't moving away because of the big bang. Right?

page: 1
4
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:25 PM
Hope I'm not rambling here. Can anyone make sense of this?

It's easy to imagine galaxies rewinding back into the big bang singularity, but we also know that the galaxies are NOT moving away from each other because of the force of the big bang. Galaxies are moving away because the space between them is filling in with dark energy. Now, take away the Big Bang for a minute and nothing is changed. The dark energy would keep filling in the space between the galaxies just as it is now. So, how do we know that all the galaxies would rewind into a singularity that started the whole universe? They could've been going in different directions and were caught up in the dark energy. How do we know the dark energy goes on throughout the entire universe?

If we could throw little plastic galaxies in random directions around the edge of a whirlpool (our universe in rewind), once they got caught up in the whirlpool, and if we were in one of those galaxies we would say, LOOK, the universe is rewinding itself, bringing all the material back into a singularity! But, we know that these little galaxies didn't originate from that single point because we threw them in there.

Am I making any sense at all?

So, is there really proof that the Big Bang happened at all?

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:32 PM
Imagine it like a balloon being blown up, there is no single "explosive point" from which everything rushes away from. In fact, clusters of galaxies move in a group. Then clusters of clusters, then super clusters. To say every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy is a bit of a misnomer. However there is no central point where reversing the expansion will result in a single point that we could say, "Yep, this is where the Big Bang happened."

Edit: To clarify, I'm not a proponent of the "Big Bang Theory." I prefer the, "Big Bump." Our universe was a tiny little nothing until it bumped into a much bigger universe and then BAMMMMMM! Our universe expanded exponentially, at some points we expanded well beyond the speed of light (the universe was bigger at some points of expansion than the speed of light would allow.)

edit on 7-6-2013 by PW229 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:40 PM

Originally posted by jiggerj
It's easy to imagine galaxies rewinding back into the big bang singularity, but we also know that the galaxies are NOT moving away from each other because of the force of the big bang. Galaxies are moving away because the space between them is filling in with dark energy. Now, take away the Big Bang for a minute and nothing is changed. The dark energy would keep filling in the space between the galaxies just as it is now. So, how do we know that all the galaxies would rewind into a singularity that started the whole universe? They could've been going in different directions and were caught up in the dark energy. How do we know the dark energy goes on throughout the entire universe?

You have very clear thinking on this and the way you express your idea visually helps make sense. I for one, have always laughed at the big bang theory - it is not plausible.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by PW229
Imagine it like a balloon being blown up, there is no single "explosive point" from which everything rushes away from. In fact, clusters of galaxies move in a group. Then clusters of clusters, then super clusters. To say every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy is a bit of a misnomer. However there is no central point where reversing the expansion will result in a single point that we could say, "Yep, this is where the Big Bang happened."

Edit: To clarify, I'm not a proponent of the "Big Bang Theory." I prefer the, "Big Bump." Our universe was a tiny little nothing until it bumped into a much bigger universe and then BAMMMMMM! Our universe expanded exponentially, at some points we expanded well beyond the speed of light (the universe was bigger at some points of expansion than the speed of light would allow.)

edit on 7-6-2013 by PW229 because: (no reason given)

So, on this expanding balloon, how come two of the dots, named Andromeda and Milky Way(and possibly more we haven't spotted yet) are heading back towards each other?

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:44 PM

Here's a video where a physicist talks about all the things your asking. His name is Lawrence Krauss and here is a lecture on the subject of "a universe from nothing".

edit on 7-6-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:47 PM
There is another theory current;y being tested if I remember right.. About the dimensional walls of our universe existing next to each other, but that they touched and what happened then was the start of the expanding spacee between all the matter what was around.

I'm sure you can find if you look for it. I;m sorry but I gotta be brief I'm gonna blow if I don't rush to the mens room.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:50 PM

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by PW229

I was kinda hoping you'd give me some relevant material, be it your own explanation or a link.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 04:19 PM

galaxies we see are on balance all moving away from us and the father back in time/distance we look the faster the recession is. The surface of the balloon is a physical analog that fits the current observation set. The BBT does imply everything --including the fabric of space, converges to a singularity. Since the geometry of space isn't entirely known, the idea of a centroid of expansion may or may not be useful.

As convention would have it, space is not filling with dark energy. As I understand the model, the total energy content of the universe isn't changing but the the energy density/unit volume is dropping. Dark matter is starting to have more contact with science and some predictions are now being tested. IMO dark energy is not even a hypothesis. A place-holder until a legit model can replace it. I would enjoy living to see some breakthroughs on the geometry of space-time but who knows? Maybe the balloon analogy will make fools of everyone?

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 04:36 PM
Lets be honest guys, we don't know Sheeet about our universe. For crying out loud I just read a post that inferred gays caused the tornado in Oklahoma...The further we look out into space the further back in time we see, but by that standard what we are seeing is already gone... And we can't even feed the people that are here and now.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 06:56 PM

The surface of the balloon is a physical analog that fits the current observation set.

How can this be an adequate analogy when the galaxies are not ON a balloon, but IN it?

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 06:59 PM

It is hard to explain this to you if you think the singularity was formed by a collision between two particles.

The question you should aks then is: Would a collision between two particles form a singularity or would it form a shover of something else.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by MindpurelyMind
The further we look out into space the further back in time we see, but by that standard what we are seeing is already gone.

The furthest known galaxy is 13.3 billion light years away. Furthest galaxy

Now, what I interpret that to mean is we are seeing the light of that galaxy from where is was positioned 13.3 billion light years ago. You are right, it is no longer there. Since that time is has been moving away (for millions and millions of years). If the universe is 14 billion years old, then how can that furthest galaxy be THAT far away?

Anyone, anyone, anyone?

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by spy66

It is hard to explain this to you if you think the singularity was formed by a collision between two particles.

Where did I write that?

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:32 PM

Ok we don't know Big Bang for sure.
What do we have.
A space full of matter perhaps with pressure waves from star gas explosions
pushing all away except for gravity and some electrical forces perhaps.
So mass, gravity and electricity and no spiritual force perhaps being elusive.
No I don't see a rewind unless by spiritual forces perhaps.
Well dark energy or dark matter must factor into a universe increasing in
mass and volume as star fusion creates mass and energy until red giant stage.
So star fusion must be using the dark matter and energy causing an ever increasing
universe. So why go back.

edit on 6/7/2013 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 07:39 PM

Originally posted by jiggerj

The surface of the balloon is a physical analog that fits the current observation set.
How can this be an adequate analogy when the galaxies are not ON a balloon, but IN it?
He did say the *surface* of the balloon and indeed that is often cited as an analogy, though it's not a good one. No analogy is really accurate, but a better one cosmologists like to use is to say the galaxies are like raisins in raisin bread while the dough is rising, they are all moving apart.

But of course they aren't, because our galaxy is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy, so it's only on larger scales than galaxy clusters where the the redshift is consistent in showing expansion.
Galaxies aren't moving though space like the raisins, so really, there's no great analogy.

I don't think you are going to get why physicists are impressed with the big bang theory without understanding a lot of physics, which includes calculating or predicting the existence of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Most non-physicists have little appreciation for this CMB prediction.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Now, what I interpret that to mean is we are seeing the light of that galaxy from where is was positioned 13.3 billion light years ago. You are right, it is no longer there. Since that time is has been moving away (for millions and millions of years). If the universe is 14 billion years old, then how can that furthest galaxy be THAT far away?

Anyone, anyone, anyone?
If it still exists it's likely over 40 billion light years away by now in comoving distance terms, rather than "lookback time"

Observable Universe

The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14 gigaparsecs (46 billion light years or 4.3×1026 meters) in any direction.
And we think it's possible there's more past the 46 billion light years that we can't observe.

But this might sound confusing because these are comoving distances (in the present) and articles like the one you cited don't refer to that but instead use a measure like "lookback time" which is where it was in the past, not in the present.

I for one, have always laughed at the big bang theory - it is not plausible.
I admit the idea of billions and billions of stars in each of billions and billions of galaxies all fitting inside the head of a pin does seem absurd and is hard to wrap your mind around.

But nature doesn't care if we can wrap our minds around what it does or not. We can't rule out that this is just a limitation of our minds. Some quantum mechanics observations seem a little unsettling to our ideas of the way some of us would like nature to be too. But we have to let nature guide our thoughts. Trying to use our thoughts to guide nature's behavior has not been successful in quantum mechanical experiments, which frustrated even Einstein somewhat.
edit on 7-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 09:35 PM

Originally posted by jiggerj

The surface of the balloon is a physical analog that fits the current observation set.

How can this be an adequate analogy when the galaxies are not ON a balloon, but IN it?

You make some great and interesting science threads my friend.

You always ask the best questions, in a very down to earth way.

Ok, it is only a way for us to visualize it, since the human mind has troble trying to see these things in a 3D way, a 2D model is used.

For example, the explanation of a worm hole and a piece of paper, or the example of gravity being a sheet of rubber, with a heavy object in the center.

As I understand the current state of model, it would be easier to picture a piece of butter on a warm pan, as the butter melts, it spreads out covering more and more area of the pan.

The big bang is nothing but the exact opposite of a black hole, we know black holes are real, we can even observe them indirectly, because of their severe gradient of gravity. It is quite a spectacle to see a millions solar mass sun make a 180 degree turn around one, here is a video of exactly that happening in the center of our milky way galaxy, we have actually observed this happening, it is so awesome.

Now imagine instead of mass falling into it, it all just came out at once, this is the very essence of the big bang, all matter in the universe was at one point in a giant singularity, for some unknown reason, it all came out, quite rapidly, and gave birth to all you see.

As a result of this, space was either created, or was already present, and the matter, or butter, is at present spreading out as it expands into the void.

At present we are not sure why, but some unknown force,"dark energy" "dark matter" are causing gravity to be overcome, and things are moving away instead of towards each other.

It isnt just the galaxies that are moving apart, all space, in all space is increasing. Your atoms are even getting farther apart as we speak.

If you were to draw dots on a rubber band, and then stretch it out, you would see this concept happen, just think of the dots as the atoms of the universes matter, and the stretching rubber band is space/time.

We have measured this, and know it is happening, but still have no explanation, they basically just made up dark matter and dark energy to explain the mechanism that is causing it to happen, kinda like string theory just makes up new dimensions everytime they run into a problem that that model cant solve, they make a new " somthing" to explain it away, instead of trying to work through the problem to a acceptable answer.

This isnt necessarily a bad thing, as it doesnt matter what we call it, what matters is we know it is there and an unknown we must solve to further our understanding. A rose by any other name........... the name doesnt matter, the concept of what it is, is what matters.

I will answer any other questions you have to the best of my ability, I am quite knowledgeable in this subject, it has been my favorite subject since childhood.

posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 09:51 PM

Originally posted by jiggerj

The surface of the balloon is a physical analog that fits the current observation set.

How can this be an adequate analogy when the galaxies are not ON a balloon, but IN it?

It's an ANALOGY, doesn't mean it's 1:1 scientifically correctly represented - it serves to make the idea easier to understand to normal people

You could imagine the balloon inflation in "3D"...eg. each time during when the balloon inflates you mark in 3D space where the "galaxies" are to each other. You blow up the balloon a but, then make your next measurement. And so on. Obviously, the mini galaxies expand from a small point outwards "into 3D space", that the galaxies are only painted on the outside of the balloon doesn't matter.

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 03:29 AM

If you want to make a good theory on Howe the space between galaxies expands. You have to make up Your mind about what the singularity is, and what the first cause is.

So, you have to try out different modles and see Howe they fit inn With the observations.

What the singularity should look like is very easy to figure out. If Our universe is expanding. You know that at some point in time the universe was a solid compressed sphere of energy.

Before the singularity was formed Space looked like this':

After the singularity was formed. Space looked like this.

The tricky part is, Howe was it formed. This will tell you about Howe it will expand. But it is not that tricky. Not if you look at Planck Time from 10-44 Seconds ofter initial expansion. And keep in mind that the singularity was a very hot sphere of plasme "solid". We know that the singularity was very hot because we observe that Our universe has cooled Down.

What is the story about black matter, stars and galaxies. 90% black matter and 10% stars and galaxies?

It really dosent matter if the number is not 100% correct. Correct numbers will give correct expansion. But to know Howe it expands you dont really need the correct numbers. But what you have to keep in mind is that everything is from the singularity.

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

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:07 AM

I will answer any other questions you have to the best of my ability, I am quite knowledgeable in this subject, it has been my favorite subject since childhood.

Good for you! I love this stuff but I just can't absorb it all because my brain is stubborn. When I find things that defy logic and perception, I guess I'm too afraid to invest (waste) too much time on it. So, for me it just makes for interesting conversation. Here are two points I'd like to make on your reply:

As I understand the current state of model, it would be easier to picture a piece of butter on a warm pan, as the butter melts, it spreads out covering more and more area of the pan.

If you were to draw dots on a rubber band, and then stretch it out, you would see this concept happen, just think of the dots as the atoms of the universes matter, and the stretching rubber band is space/time.

In both analogies the intelligent life in the galaxies closest to the source (unmelted butter), or center of the rubber band would be able to figure out that they are closer to the source. If the butter and rubber band reversed their stretching out, the source would be discovered.

In OUR universe, however, if we viewed the motion of the galaxies from the Milky way or from the one that is 13.3 billion light years away we would conclude that if reversed, then the singularity came from somewhere nearby. Now jump to a galaxy 13 billion light years in the OPPOSITE direction of the Milky way, and we would conclude the same thing about the singularity having come from somewhere over there. Then take a trip south 13.3 billion light years from there, or north or west... No matter where we viewed the motion of the galaxies we would assume that the Big Bang started somewhere nearby (in the cosmic scheme of things). Doesn't this call into question whether there was ever a singularity in the first place?
edit on 6/8/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

new topics

4