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

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


This image is the one you would want to use to understand inflation.




In this image it wont matter on which dot you stand on. It will look like every dot is moving away from you no matter were you are.

If you reverse the expansion all the dots will mass up on eachother in one big ball of hot plasma energy.

In stead of jumping to fast forward. You should really think about what a billions of degrees hot energy plasma is.

This plasma ball can not be compared to a spunch or a spring. Not if you dont know in what steps the plasma would expand. Because a plasma mass wont just break into pices and move away from eachother.




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Well i dont completely agree With you. A plasma mass that is billions of degrees hot, will not act like a spunch or a spring. It will act more like a ice qube that is melting on a plate. just that the plasma mass will be cooling Down.

The plasma is a very compressed energy mass. This energy is so hot that it is to hot for particles to exist. The cooling prosess will eventually let plasma mass form the particles that will form Our galaxies. The cooling prosess within this plasma mass will also creats the matter that makes up the Space between the galaxies.

A gass that cools Down will expand. This could be a Clue to why the Space beteen the galaxies are expanding.

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



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
What proof would you have of a singularity if you are living on one of those dots?
I wouldn't use the word "proof". But as I said in my first reply to this thread, the CMB is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence of the singularity, which strongly support the big bang theory, but it doesn't really "prove" it.

There are numerous supporting observations for the big bang:
1. The "signature" of the big bang, the CMB.
2. The earliest galaxies after the big bang look young and simple, being much less mature looking than spiral galaxies which might be the result of galactic collisions that happened over time. So we see "evolution" of the shapes of the galaxies which lend support to the big bang theory, from simple spheres to more complex spirals, for example.
3. Metallicity observations which show more hydrogen content in objects with long "lookback times" meaning closer to the big bang, and less hydrogen content in more mature objects like our sun and solar system. This is consistent with there being a lot of hydrogen right after the big bang, and less over time.
4. The redshift of galaxies.

Conceivably, there might be alternate explanations for any one of these observations, which is what you seem to be pondering about alternate explanations for #4 and you're not the only one who has considered this.

But when you add numbers 1, 2, and 3, to #4, no other theories or ideas come close to the big bang theory. It's not proven, only strongly supported by lots of different pieces of evidence.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

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?



When you go much further back in time.....light didn't exist as the universe at that time was so dense there was too much interference for there to be light. Everything as you get much closer to the Big Bang Event Start is just a haze of energy and matter. Of course it could be that our methods of observation just aren't good enough to see further back........ A better way of saying things is that the "Observable" universe at this time with our instrumentation can only see that far back 13.3B years.

This thread show something some scientists think shows evidence of something "else" Planck Space Data yields evidence of Universes beyond our own.



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
OP, the problem with your thinking, and the reason you are going down that path is this -

Both you and your "YaYa" galaxy example want to "pull" the galaxies they observe "back"...

Pulling them back infers you are near the sigularity point already, hence pull them back towards you (or the YaYa in your example).

In conclusion, we are not the center of the Universe, and neither are the YaYa's, for that matter.




posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 





In this image it wont matter on which dot you stand on. It will look like every dot is moving away from you no matter were you are. If you reverse the expansion all the dots will mass up on each other in one big ball of hot plasma energy.


That's exactly my point. Which dot represents the point of origin? Is it the dot marked in red, pulling all the galaxies back toward it? Is it the yellow one, pulling all the galaxies back toward it? The blue one, pulling all the galaxies back toward it? The orange one pulling all the galaxies back toward it?



I'm not even saying that there isn't a point of origin. I'm just saying that using this method of reversing the direction of all the galaxies we see from only our perspective doesn't locate that point, nor does it prove that one exists. If anything it suggests MANY points of origin, but we know that can't be right.
edit on 6/9/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





3. Metallicity observations which show more hydrogen content in objects with long "lookback times" meaning closer to the big bang, and less hydrogen content in more mature objects like our sun and solar system. This is consistent with there being a lot of hydrogen right after the big bang, and less over time.


I know this is from Wiki, but I'm tired and heading for bed after this. I think this description declares that hydrogen didn't form for thousands of years after the Big Bang.


thousands of years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium.
Big Bang

What do you mean by less hydrogen over the years? I thought the universe today is loaded with it?

Also, we know that hydrogen is the simplest of all the elements. So, if hydrogen didn't come directly out of the Big Bang, what the heck DID come out of it that was capable of being converted INTO hydrogen?

By the way, I LOVED your reply. Very informative!
edit on 6/9/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by spy66
 





In this image it wont matter on which dot you stand on. It will look like every dot is moving away from you no matter were you are. If you reverse the expansion all the dots will mass up on each other in one big ball of hot plasma energy.


That's exactly my point. Which dot represents the point of origin? Is it the dot marked in red, pulling all the galaxies back toward it? Is it the yellow one, pulling all the galaxies back toward it? The blue one, pulling all the galaxies back toward it? The orange one pulling all the galaxies back toward it?



I'm not even saying that there isn't a point of origin. I'm just saying that using this method of reversing the direction of all the galaxies we see from only our perspective doesn't locate that point, nor does it prove that one exists. If anything it suggests MANY points of origin, but we know that can't be right.
edit on 6/9/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)


I which my English was a lot better that would probably make this easier.

It isent a specific Galaxy within this bunch that is the origen. The galaxies are all part of a prosess that took Place within the singularity as the singularity expaned and cooled Down.

If you reverse the image properly. The galaxies will gradually desolve and become plasma particles "within" the singularity.

First the matter that makes up the Space between these galaxies must reverse (compress). As that take's Place the galaxies will become closer to eachother. The compressed matter/Space between these galaxies will increase the pressure "become hoter". This will increase the pressure on the galaxies, and the galaxies will begin to change shape, by that the gasses within the galaxies desolve first. As you keep on reversing the prosess the pressure increases and the Space between the galaxies become even hoter, and the galaxies will change even more until the Space between the galaxies become so hot that the solids begin to desolve.

Maybe i should remind you that the matter that make up the Space between these galaxies make up over 90% of all the matter within the expanding "singularity". If you reverse the expansion in the right order you will compress a lot of matter not just the galaxies.

Your intital question was about the Space between the galaxies, and how it makes the galaxies expand.
The reason galaxies expand is because the matter that make up the space between the galaxies are cooling Down. The reverse would heat up the Space between the galaxies. because matter become more compressed.

The singularity became very very very very hot as it was formed. Now 13.7 billion years after it has become much much colder, and a lot bigger.


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



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
What do you mean by less hydrogen over the years? I thought the universe today is loaded with it?
Yes it's still loaded with hydrogen, but there used to be more. Look in the sky and what do we see? Stars converting hydrogen into heavier elements. Our sun in just one second converts something like 620 million metric tons of hydrogen into 616 tons of helium. And it's expected to keep doing this for maybe another 5 billion years so there's a lot of hydrogen left in our sun, but not as much as there used to be. (620 million tons less now than there was one second ago). But most of the hydrogen from the early universe has not yet been converted into heavier elements, and that's why there's still so much hydrogen left, as you suggested.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Only a few percent of the original hydrogen and helium in the Universe has been burned this way.


This is pretty good support for the big bang related to that topic:
Astronomers Find Clouds of Primordial Gas from the Early Universe, Just Moments After Big Bang

For the first time, astronomers have found pristine clouds of the primordial gas that formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. The composition of the gas matches theoretical predictions, providing direct evidence in support of the modern cosmological explanation for the origins of elements in the universe.



Also, we know that hydrogen is the simplest of all the elements. So, if hydrogen didn't come directly out of the Big Bang, what the heck DID come out of it that was capable of being converted INTO hydrogen?
That's complicated and perhaps even somewhat speculative, but there's a wiki article that attempts to answer it. Hydrogen (and helium) formed during the recombination phase, and the link has descriptions for the phases which might have existed previously:

Chronology of the Universe

1 Very early universe

1.1 Planck epoch
1.2 Grand unification epoch
1.3 Electroweak epoch
1.3.1 Inflationary epoch
1.3.2 Baryogenesis

2 Early universe

2.1 Supersymmetry breaking (speculative)
2.2 Electroweak symmetry breaking and the quark epoch
2.3 Hadron epoch
2.4 Lepton epoch
2.5 Photon epoch
2.5.1 Nucleosynthesis
2.5.2 Matter domination
2.5.3 Recombination
2.5.4 Dark Ages
It's got the Wiki warning at the top so it may not be a perfect article, and it even describes some phases as speculative, but it's probably close enough for the purposes of our present discussion to give you some idea of current thinking. I think we can expect this model of the earliest universe to improve as we learn more, however.


By the way, I LOVED your reply. Very informative!
I'm glad it was helpful. It's refreshing to see people ask questions about the big bang theory to understand why it's popular with scientists, instead of just dismissing it like some other people do, because they don't think it makes sense, and haven't really researched all the supporting evidence.
edit on 10-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
This entire post, and all the topics within rely on things that have yet to be proven.

1. That galaxies actualy are moving away from us(milkyway or center of universe). This is not a known fact, red shift, has come under serious fire once again lately. The entire idea that the universe is expanding is based on a possibly misunderstood princaple and when we look out "nearby" objects in the local group we can see that not all galaxies are moving away form each other, they collide, etc. This right there is more evidence saying that the universe is not expanding in the way that current science likes to explain. Red shift is simply a best guest, and the "currently most likely explination"

Redshift mechanism is presently argued as proof for the expansion of the universe, in order to explain the famous observation that the spectral redshifts of distant galaxies, quasars, and intergalactic gas clouds increase in proportion to their distance from the observer. This hypothesis is a key feature of the Big Bang model of physical cosmology.

But is it really so? Consider the following thought model:

You are suspended in a swimming pool. The water of the swimming pool......is dyed ever so slightly red...
...Light bulbs are of different intensities - they represent different galaxies..


Since the blue end of the spectrum is absorbed by intergalactic space faster than the red, the observer can only distinguish the closer sources of approaching light as approaching motion...

A light source that is located at an appreciable distance will not show any blue shift, even though it is approaching us...

Because of the intergalactic medium (mostly hydrogen,) a far away light source will appear increasingly red with respect to its distance from the observer. Hence the phenomenon of Redshift...

This scenario suggests that the Doppler Redshift is effective only at "short" distances, but that - as the illustration infers - Redshift at cosmic distances does not denote velocity, only distance, and would go some way to explaining why galaxies so close to the supposed "Big Bang" look much the same as they do around our local intergalactic neighborhood.

Reber showed that the Compton effect was the cause of the red shift in order to explain the observations of bright, very long wavelength, extragalactic radio waves. Kierein used the Compton effect explanation to explain quasars and the red shift on the sun.

Quasars may be much closer than their red shift would indicate if they have an "intrinsic" red shift due to being surrounded by a 'fuzzy' atmosphere containing free electrons and other material(plasma). This concentration of electrons produces the unusual red shift as the light travels through it and loses energy to these electrons per the Compton effect. The famed astronomer, Margaret Burbidge, is a strong proponent of the quasar intrinsic red shift. She questions their distance and believes quasars are associated with lower red shift galaxies.



2. I also want you to notice the very careful language used by those at planck in that video. Never once did the actual scientist claim anything concrete. In fact recent expiraments at planck have suggested many odd effects that science is not taking into consideration in the standard model.

Planck has just as clearly shown that galaxies likely do not require gravity to form as they have shown there is likely a black hole at the center of the milky way. They are one of the few places left doing real science and are open enough to consider other possibilities.


edit on 11-6-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by vind21
This entire post, and all the topics within rely on things that have yet to be proven.

1. That galaxies actualy are moving away from us. This is not a known fact, red shift, has come under serious fire once again lately.
Are you talking about this post of a video by a NASA astronomer saying they aren't really moving away but rather the space between them is increasing?

Or do you have another source?
edit on 11-6-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


By "this post" I was reffering to the OP, the thread we are posting in now. The supposition that most objects in the universe is moving away from us, and the possibl casue.

Also, your link is not working for me, if it was relavent.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 

Thanks, yes the link was broken but I fixed it, and it's relevant because if you have a better source I'd be interested to see it.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It would seem the video no longer is up. It just says unavailable. If judging only by the title then no, I do not have a better source explaining the accepted version of red shift and distance relation.

I can, however, go into detail on why red shift is likely wrong, with adequate, reliable, and accomplished sources!



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by vind21
 

That's odd because it still plays for me and it's NASA astronomer so I wouldn't expect it to be restricted by country like some videos are. It's pretty mainstream stuff.

Anyway please post your sources.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join