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

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

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?


Because space is being created between us and that other galaxy. Meaning light has to travel further to reach us. Funny part is that if the galaxies were completely stationary and didnt move space would still be created. Expansion of the universe doesnt meant the galaxies are being pushed away there not.Guess the easiest way to explain empty space has potential energy like a spring being compressed. As the springs energy disapates it appears to take up more space. Space is just expanding to what its supposed to take up think of it as compressed space. Here ill try an analogy lets say you blow up a balloon on earth and take that baloon into a vacuum you will see it get considerably larger. Now picture the universe being compressed and its currently expanding in a vacuum its going to get much bigger.




posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Using your image I added in white dots to represent galaxies. Now, if there had been a singularity wouldn't you think that we would have other galaxies moving alongside of us, instead of ALL of them moving away from us? The only glitch is Andromeda, but I'm told the only reason it is on a collision course with us is because of gravity pulling us together, so its direction and speed is irrelevant when it comes to the Big Bang.

If a few galaxies were moving along at the same speed and direction as the Milky Way, THEN we could reverse their motion back to a singularity. As it stands now (minus Andromeda) EVERYTHING is moving away from everything else. In my mind this is not evidence of a single point of origin. Then again, what do I know?

edit on 6/8/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 





Here ill try an analogy lets say you blow up a balloon on earth and take that balloon into a vacuum you will see it get considerably larger. Now picture the universe being compressed and its currently expanding in a vacuum its going to get much bigger.


That is a great analogy, and SCARY at the same time. Really brings home the fact that the universe will one day be totally ripped apart by the vacuum. If you think the vacuum was there before the BB, would that vacuum be energy, or the complete absence of it?



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by spy66
 


Using your image I added in white dots to represent galaxies. Now, if there had been a singularity wouldn't you think that we would have other galaxies moving alongside of us, instead of ALL of them moving away from us? The only glitch is Andromeda, but I'm told the only reason it is on a collision course with us is because of gravity pulling us together, so its direction and speed is irrelevant.

If a few galaxies were moving along at the same speed and direction as the Milky Way, THEN we could reverse their motion back to a singularity. As it stands now (minus Andromeda) EVERYTHING is moving away from everything else. In my mind this is not evidence of a single point of origin. Then again, what do I know?




Its a Nice thought. But you are jumping very fast forward here. Galaxies dont just break of the singularity and expand flat out in all directions.

The matter that will create these galaxies havent been made yet. All you have in the image is the singularity before it expands.
The singularity is a very hot plasma ball. Start from there. What would happen to the hot plasma ball if it is surroubed by a much colder void?

I will give you a few tips.

The first part of the expansion is light. The singularity would emitt light into the void surrounding it.

Do think you know what the next expansion would be from the singularity?

Keep in mind that you are far into the expansion of Our universe at this stage. Parts of Our universe were present as the singularity was being formed. Actions always have a reaction. The reaction of forming the singularity is already present surrounding the singularity.


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



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





The first part of the expansion is light.


I'm confused? I've heard several times that the Big Bang was NOT a big fiery explosion, but rather a sudden release of all the material contained within the singularity. I thought 'light' didn't come into existence until the first sun was formed. Yes? No?



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by spy66
 





The first part of the expansion is light.


I'm confused? I've heard several times that the Big Bang was NOT a big fiery explosion, but rather a sudden release of all the material contained within the singularity. I thought 'light' didn't come into existence until the first sun was formed. Yes? No?


I am not saying the singularity exploded. It inflated. What is the differenc between a inflation and a explosion?

Light was the second expansion of the singularity. The first expansion took Place as the singularity was being formed. "All actions have a reaction".

If you really want to know why the Space between the galaxies are expanding. These are the steps you have to study.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


How i see it is there is three theories right
1 big bang theory
2 brain theory
3 string theory

WELL i think its all three at once

heres how in my "little mind"

two or more membranes (brains) collide causing a bang of sorts and are forever entangled (string thingy)

just a thought

dont forget we are all universes (brains) of sorts

as my brain as its own big bang


YOU NEVER KNOW, well no one else as a clue it could be right.
edit on 8/6/2013 by maryhinge because: spell check



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 





I thought 'light' didn't come into existence until the first sun was formed. Yes? No?


The very first light was the singularity. The sun - light came much later.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


My God man, the questions you ask, and the manner in which you ask them..........maybe you should have been a scientist, because your asking all the right questions, in all the right ways.

Ok, as we understand it, at present, it is the very fabric of space/time itself that is getting bigger, so there is more "space" in space, every second.

Imagine I take a rubber sheet, about 1' by 1'. Now I shoot a paintball at its center, it looks like a basically quarter sized solid paint mark, with a splatter all around the main paint spot in the middle.

Now stretch the sheet to 10' by 10', the once solid paint mark in the middle will be several smaller paint marks as it is pulled apart, now stretch it to 100' by 100' and there will be even less of a solid "starting point to that original paint mark, now stretch it to 1mile by 1mile, than 10,000 miles by 10,000 miles, then to 13.3 billion lightyears.....

As it is stretched further and further, it becomes harder and harder to say "this" spot right here is where it all began, as there will be so much to observe, and everything is so stretched out.

The big bang, is that original paintball mark, and space/time, is the sheet of ever expanding rubber, so there was at one time, a large "spot" where it all began, but after so much stretching, or expansion, it is impossible to see where it was at.

Now add in a 3D expansion, not only on the horizontal axis, but the vertical as well, and all this becomes even harder to see where it all began. As the spots at the top and bottom expand away from the center faster than the spots in the center expand away from eachother.

The reason it looks like the original expansion came from nearby, no matter your location in the universe, is because at one point, all space and matter was nearby, but after billions of years of ever accelerated expansion, those same points that were once basically touching eachother, are now so far apart, they can barely even be seen with the most advanced optics.

say the rubber sheet started out, before we stretched it, as only the size of an atom, or even just the size of a single proton, all that space and matter would be right on top of eachother, but once stretched out to the size we see today, it is unrecognizable.

So the space not just between galaxies or stars, but the atoms and protons and neutrons and electrons that make them up is also expanding.

In essence, at one point in time, all space and time and matter was in the exact same place, a planc length, the smallest unit of measure possible. there was no space, after the expansion, which basically is where space came from, there is now space, so we can see the difference between here and there. There was once only here, no there. All occupied the exact same space, as there was no space at all.

this video may help, they have illustrations to show, how honestly, no matter where you are, you are standing in what was once the center of the universe, as all the universe was once in the same planc length space, wich is a space, without any "space" at all.






posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by jiggerj
 


How i see it is there is three theories right
1 big bang theory
2 brain theory
3 string theory

WELL i think its all three at once

heres how in my "little mind"

two or more membranes (brains) collide causing a bang of sorts and are forever entangled (string thingy)

just a thought

dont forget we are all universes (brains) of sorts

as my brain as its own big bang


YOU NEVER KNOW, well no one else as a clue it could be right.
edit on 8/6/2013 by maryhinge because: spell check


Are you mixing brain with brane? I'm pretty sure the brane you're talking about is short for membrane, not brain.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
The big bang has nothing to with it. You see, galaxies are moving away because the neighborhood has changed and no longer considered safe.



posted on Jun, 8 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by maryhinge
reply to post by jiggerj
 


How i see it is there is three theories right
1 big bang theory
2 brain theory
3 string theory

WELL i think its all three at once

heres how in my "little mind"

two or more membranes (brains) collide causing a bang of sorts and are forever entangled (string thingy)

just a thought

dont forget we are all universes (brains) of sorts

as my brain as its own big bang


YOU NEVER KNOW, well no one else as a clue it could be right.
edit on 8/6/2013 by maryhinge because: spell check


Are you mixing brain with brane? I'm pretty sure the brane you're talking about is short for membrane, not brain.


Im not sure what she meant can we get an interpreter asap i reread it 3 times and STILL CLUELESS. Though im worried i think theres explosions going off in their head that cant be good//



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
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?


Each point in the universe is experiencing the rest of the universe racing away from it as if that point where the Big Bang blast zone. And yet, no one ever realized that this mean that there was no specific blast point - meaning that there was no actual Big Bang blast. Ever.

I'm reading The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next, by Lee Smolin and the truth is that the Big Bang theory is the least of our problems with science and the existence of any realistic view of our universe as a whole. Relativity, Supersymmetry, The Standard Model, and pretty much all of Physics has literally hit a wall since the mid-1970s, with the "Higgs boson" possibly providing the final nail in the coffin of the whole charade that trotted out onstage once Einstein's contemporaries handed Physics over to the Feynman-Dyson crowd of theory applications (thereby ending all large problem thinking as integral to the nature of how new physicists are reared and nurtured). The net result has been a generational bottleneck of stalled devotion to battling reality itself for tiny advances in proving theories that may very well need to be scrapped - or, at least diminished to their proper relative status - instead of using that brain power and dedication to looking up from the table set before Physics to see what else could be true (and obviously so) about the reality that is showing up in their research indications. Well, as opposed to shoehorning the interpretations of those results to best serve the established theories - to the extent that they actually can, which has become harder and harder to achieve as the decades have worn on.

Last month there was a flurry of articles published that suggested that the newly declared Higgs boson has completely failed to support the mathematical expectations that theorists believed that such a discovery would provide - ending all speculation concerning the Big Bang and a host of supporting theories. And by factors ranging from 10 to over 100. In 2007, (when the over mentioned book was published), modern Physics itself was in grave danger of complete and utter failure, and it's obvious that the crisis has only deepened, with the recent determinations concerning the only "good news" to come out of the field in that Higgs "accomplishment" of last summer.

It's kind of exciting for those of us who know that the Big Bang, particle physics, and The Standard Model are (at best) incomplete, and in more ways that not, complete failures in the pursuit of reality as a whole. The truth is that leaning heavily on math and physics formulas and assuming the existence of "laws of physics" that are eternal and simply present, without any effort to determine why they exist or how they came into existence, was always going to eventually lead scientists down a blind alley. Well, unless someone got really, really lucky and stumbled onto an escape route before the alley closed completely, trapping the marching band as the rear kept right on marching forward, crushing those who led the entire parade into a brick wall.

To be honest, this is all very new to me. I had no idea that science was so completely lost and so incapable of pulling over and asking for directions.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Each point in the universe is experiencing the rest of the universe racing away from it as if that point where the Big Bang blast zone. And yet, no one ever realized that this mean that there was no specific blast point - meaning that there was no actual Big Bang blast. Ever.


THANK YOU for understanding what I've been trying to explain!
All the analogies used to define one singularity (melting butter, rubber band) will still lead back to a specific point, whereas the real universe shows us just the opposite.

Maybe if we imagined lassoing some of the galaxies and pulling them back in the direction from whence they came we would see that a singularity doesn't make sense. If we pulled galaxies back while standing in the Milky way, those galaxies would move in one direction, and then if we moved out to the furthest galaxy and pulled the galaxies back they would move in a different direction. This doesn't make for a single point of origin. Well, in my little mind it doesn't.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Each point in the universe is experiencing the rest of the universe racing away from it as if that point where the Big Bang blast zone. And yet, no one ever realized that this mean that there was no specific blast point - meaning that there was no actual Big Bang blast. Ever.


THANK YOU for understanding what I've been trying to explain!
All the analogies used to define one singularity (melting butter, rubber band) will still lead back to a specific point, whereas the real universe shows us just the opposite.

Maybe if we imagined lassoing some of the galaxies and pulling them back in the direction from whence they came we would see that a singularity doesn't make sense. If we pulled galaxies back while standing in the Milky way, those galaxies would move in one direction, and then if we moved out to the furthest galaxy and pulled the galaxies back they would move in a different direction. This doesn't make for a single point of origin. Well, in my little mind it doesn't.


It is byond my understanding that you dont see how this expansion would lead back to one single point.

It is practically in the Word it self. You People are mixing up Your preseptions.

If the galaxies are expanding away from eachother equally no matter what Galaxy you choose. All the galaxies would also be equally closer if you reverse the expansion. If you reverse the expansion enough they will all interact With eachother at one single point.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





It is byond my understanding that you dont see how this expansion would lead back to one single point. It is practically in the Word it self. You People are mixing up Your preseptions. If the galaxies are expanding away from eachother equally no matter what Galaxy you choose. All the galaxies would also be equally closer if you reverse the expansion. If you reverse the expansion enough they will all interact With eachother at one single point.


Look, I'm probably very wrong about this, which, admittedly, is my norm, but allow me to explain what I see in my mind. Lets go way out into space to a galaxy that even our most powerful telescope can't detect. We'll call it the Yaya galaxy. The intelligent beings there are peering into their telescopes and one of these beings says, "Look! All of the galaxies are moving away from us! Let's pull them back to find their single point of origin." Of course, they have the power to do this, and this is what it looks like:



So, it looks like the singularity was somewhere around the Yaya galaxy, or at least in that quadrant of the universe.

Now, back in the Milky Way, Edwin Hubble peers in his telescope and says, "Look! All of the galaxies are moving away from us! Let's pull them back to find their single point of origin." Of course, we don't have the power to do this, but this is what it would look like:



So now it looks like the Big Bang started in OUR quadrant of the universe, which is a quadrillion, brazillion, gamillion light years away from the Yaya galaxy.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


that was the whole point of it, nobody knows anything about the universe

ps im a man maryhinge is a play on words mary hinge get it (fur burger)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

I know you didn't like the balloon analogy, but if you forget about the interior and concentrate on the surface it may help. The surface is of course 2-dimensional, so first try to imagine what happens in 2 dimensions.

Draw dots on the inflated balloon each one representing a galaxy. On one side a dot represents the Milky way and on the other side a dot represents your hypothetical galaxy Yaya.

Everything you said is true about the galaxies all appearing to converge on both examples, but the Milky Way and Yaya also converge as you let out air. Now you have to imagine the balloon collapsing a little further than usual to a point. Note neither galaxy is the center once it's completely collapsed, because they come together.

If you see that on the 2-dimensional surface of the balloon, then try to imagine something similar happening in 3 dimensions.

Here's an astronomer explaining it:

edit on 9-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Each point in the universe is experiencing the rest of the universe racing away from it as if that point where the Big Bang blast zone. And yet, no one ever realized that this mean that there was no specific blast point - meaning that there was no actual Big Bang blast. Ever.


THANK YOU for understanding what I've been trying to explain!
All the analogies used to define one singularity (melting butter, rubber band) will still lead back to a specific point, whereas the real universe shows us just the opposite.

Maybe if we imagined lassoing some of the galaxies and pulling them back in the direction from whence they came we would see that a singularity doesn't make sense. If we pulled galaxies back while standing in the Milky way, those galaxies would move in one direction, and then if we moved out to the furthest galaxy and pulled the galaxies back they would move in a different direction. This doesn't make for a single point of origin. Well, in my little mind it doesn't.


It is byond my understanding that you dont see how this expansion would lead back to one single point.

It is practically in the Word it self. You People are mixing up Your preseptions.

If the galaxies are expanding away from eachother equally no matter what Galaxy you choose. All the galaxies would also be equally closer if you reverse the expansion. If you reverse the expansion enough they will all interact With eachother at one single point.




Ok I want you to picture something have you ever seen where we compress a sponge down to a quarter you put it in water and it expands? This is because the sponge has potential and attempting to return to its normal state. The universe is similar all the matter in the universe was compressed to a single point its only option is to expand, Now if you watch the sponge it doesnt expand at the same rate everywhere does it. The universe is similar the more space between two points the quicker the expansion. Running the process in reverse would be problematic for one the expansion doesnt happen the same everywhere and the biggest problem is we have more space now then we had when we started and have no clue what was added.

Bottom line is we can never figure out where it began but is there really a need to? As the universe continues to expand eventually people in our galaxy wont even know there are other galaxies.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





I know you didn't like the balloon analogy, but if you forget about the interior and concentrate on the surface it may help. The surface is of course 2-dimensional, so first try to imagine what happens in 2 dimensions.


I watched it. The balloon explains what we cannot witness in reality, so it is just a guess. I'm not even saying that the idea of a singularity is wrong, but rather it's not what we're seeing. Let's go one step further here:

Consider those galaxies in the red shift. The further away they get, the faster they move. From our perspective they are moving away from us and we imagine pulling them back in our direction in order for them to return to the singularity. Now jump to one of those far-away, receding galaxies and see how the Milky Way is moving away from that position. From there we would imagine having to pull the Milky Way in THAT direction in order to return it to the singularity, which is totally opposite of our perspective from the Milky Way. So, which way is right? This same example can be used in any direction 360 degrees around us, and to the furthest galaxies.

As for the inflated balloon, we KNOW that the singularity would be at the point where it was inflated, but what if the intake part was well hidden? What proof would you have of a singularity if you are living on one of those dots? Now you would see a bunch of dots moving away from each other with no way to detect where or even IF there was a single point of origin.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join