THE BIG BANG. The Big Bang Theory cannot be scientifically proved and therefore it is not a very intelligent hypothesis. At best it could be called philosophy at worst just a sad joke? I reason that if the Big Bang were true the chances are that our own galaxy would be moving away, from everything else in the Universe, spreading out from the original point of the bang. In which case, depending on where you determine the centre of the universe to be, the relationship of our galaxy with respect to the rest of the universe would be moving away from everything else including Andromeda, which in fact has a blue shift and this supposedly indicates that it is moving towards us.  However no one can say where the centre of the universe is and I maintain they never will because the Universe is a living entity pulsating with life. The Universe has to be alive because otherwise it would not be able to give life. I know I’m in the realms of metaphysics but it makes more sense than The Big Bang Theory.  For a theory to be called science, proper science, one has to be able to test the hypothesis. According to the law of conservation of energy; energy cannot be destroyed, but it can be changed from one form into another. In which case how could there possibly have been a beginning? 

“Transducer, device that converts an input energy into an output energy. Usually, the output energy is a different kind of energy than the input energy. An example is a temperature gauge in which a spiral metallic spring converts thermal energy into a mechanical deflection of the dial needle. Because of the ease with which electrical energy may be transmitted and amplified, the most useful transducers are those that convert other forms of energy, such as heat, light, or sound, into electrical energy. Some examples are microphones, which convert sound energy into electrical energy; photoelectric materials, which convert light energy into electrical energy; and pyroelectric energy crystals, which convert heat energy into electrical energy.

It has yet to be scientifically disproved either.. It is only one of numerous theories, and I like to keep an open mind to all of them.  However, to simply dismiss or reason that the Big Bang theory can only be a philosophy or at best a joke in my opinion is not so open minded. What do you have that many scientist don't to come up with the "not very intelligent" hypothesis?  
Although it is only a theory, it is one that has stood the tests of time, years of observations, and some very serious scrutiny, yet still lives on for some reason.  It may not be a perfect theory, and it may not be the answer, and it's not be the only theory, however I assure you, just as some of the other theories, it is no joke.  

To understand why two objects can still move towards each other while expanding away from a similar point of origin is actually quite simple.  It's called Gravity..
There is a tendency for galaxy groups which are gravitationally bound together to attract towards one another rather than expansion away from each other. It's the clusters of galaxies which are moving apart, whereas the individual galaxies of a cluster orbit their common centers of gravity. This sometimes causes their paths to cross, and when they meet at the crossing point at the same time there is an interaction.
Imagine two like objects moving on not so perfectly parallel lines with each other. the lines they travel on are gradually getting closer. Where the line eventually intersects there is bound to be a collision.

 

Have A Nice __________ 

 

Must be the result of a slow boring day as you gradually drift down river trying to catch the big one. Once again it evades capture in light of all your efforts. 
Using fresh bait of a different kind might just attract the fish you want to bite hold of the hook. Otherwise when using old stale bait they'll just turn their nose up and pass it by like it's not even there.  Personally I prefer real fresh live bait over an artificial lure.

 

Although there are many versions of the Big Bang theory, the main idea reads as follows. Between 15 and 20 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe came together, became very dense and hot and exploded into the expanding universe we live in today. We have all seen fire works explode into beautiful, colorful shapes. That is how the Big Bang first described the creation of the universe. Religious leaders could accept the Big Bang as how God chose to create the universe. It was easy for them to give God the credit for causing the event because astronomers could not explain what caused the event scientifically. Exploded was later deleted from the theory because no one could determine where the explosion occurred. Another problem remained in that if all the matter in the universe came together, it would have to come together somewhere. The theory was again modified to say that the Big Bang did not happen somewhere, but everywhere. This created another problem because if all the matter in the universe was created everywhere at the same time, it would not be very dense and it would not be very hot. How could an expanding universe be produced without an explosion of some sort? How could such an event happen everywhere without the needed density of all that matter? How could a vague, self-contradicting theory be so widely accepted? Since the theory was first published, aspiring astronomers have been taught about the Big Bang and Hubble's Law and, like most young eager minds do, they believe every word of it. After becoming professionals, they have been busy observing the visible universe to collect data. Red-shifted distant galaxies, supernovae, quasars and the recently discovered cosmic microwave background (CMB, are part of the many observations that have been made over the past few decades. You can bet that most of these observations have be interpreted or even manipulated to fully support the Big Bang. A good theory would not need much support (and certainly not manipulation) to appear valid. But, we have already shown that the credibility of the Big Bang theory has never been strong. After a tremendous amount of information about the universe was gathered, astronomers established the cosmological principle. This was a cornerstone assumption about the nature of the universe that held that the universe was homogenous (the same in structure on the largest scale) and isotropic (appeared the same in all directions). A major modification to the Big Bang theory was now needed to explain how distant objects in the universe seemed to know about each other. Astronomers added a period of rapid expansion called ‘inflationary epoch" to the theory which stated that shortly after the Big Bang, the universe expanded exponentially for a period of time and then began to slow down. If the matter in the universe never came together in the first place, why would it need a theory of rapid expansion? How could matter expand exponentially? Would it have to break the speed of light to do so? The reason astronomers gave for introducing inflationary epoch was false. They could not reveal the true reason for fear of undermining the credibility of the Big Bang theory itself. The true reason inflationary epoch was added was because the visible universe had grown so large, (not because of expansion) they could no longer calculate the age of the universe without it. As mentioned before astronomers determine the age of the universe by calculating how long it would take for all the galaxies around us to come back together. Since this calculation uses the radius of the visible universe measured from the Earth, they would all end up here. Do they actually believe we are at the center of the universe? Even if we accept that the universe is expanding, the expansion we see is due to relative motion. It could be that all the galaxies we see are all moving in the same direction at different velocities. If this is true then all the galaxies we see would have to reverse their present course to the location where their expansion started. The distance would be at least as far as the diameter of the visible universe. This would double the age of the universe using the current method of calculation. Astronomers also believe that the CMB is the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. They believe that the once hot universe has cooled to the current temperature of the CMB today. If the universe was never dense enough to get really hot, how could they know the CMB's initial temperature and if it was created during the Big Bang? Perhaps the CMB is simply the current temperature of the universe, sometimes a little warmer and sometimes a little cooler. Recently two separate teams were studying very distant objects in the universe to gather more information on it's apparent expansion. Both teams discovered that not only was the universe expanding, it's expansion was actually accelerating. If you take the time to do the math, an universe that is accelerating would immediately nullify Hubble's Law because we would be accelerating (in one direction) toward objects in the universe that were expanding much slower billions of years ago. Depending on the difference in our current velocity and that of the billions of year old velocity of the object, Hubble's Law and Constant would no longer apply.

We have seen the HST pics of deep space. When we observe galaxies farther and farther away we  have to raise the age of the universe. Infinity is the answer. Infinite space, infinite time, and infinite galaxies. Human nature (the chicken and the egg) does not like infinity. If we could just ask an atom how old he was instead of using current dating methods. Come on science "THINK".

There has to be another explanation for red-shifted light from distant objects. 

Really, all of your objections to the Big Bang theory, are very petty and weak. Andromeda is obviously tied to us gravitationally and is heading in our direction, or you could say that we are heading towards it. That is not in dispute. Galaxies do collide with other nearby galaxies. It's on the larger scale that they all seem to be spreading out away from each other. You say that the universe is alive? And then you say for a theory to be called a science, you have to be able to test the hypothesis? There is much greater proof for the creation of the universe than for your belief. It seems that others do not even know what the Big Bang theory is expressing. That the universe began as an infinitely hot and dense origin of matter and energy, which expanded into our present day universe. This included space/time. There is no center for the big Bang, because everything came from that one small beginning. The whole universe was once the size of a galaxy, a solar system, a star, a planet, a basket ball. Seeing as we have proof for the hypothesis that the universe is expanding out in all directions, then it is only reasonable to conclude that in the past, it was smaller. Seeing that galaxies are moving away from us, does not indicate that we are the center of the universe, because if we were in any of those other galaxies, we would be seeing the same phenomena. Once you were an embryo. What part of you is the center of that embryo now? Answer: All of you. You expanded, developed, and matured, but once upon a time, your whole body was once only an embryo. On the large scale, all galaxy clusters are moving away from each other. The fact that this expansion rate has increased or has changed, does not alter anything. Expansion is expansion. It still means that it was smaller in the past. The Big Bang theory does not answer how the universe began, nor did it ever mean to. It only states that the universe had a beginning. Proof existing. The theory would never have presented itself on it's own, without their finding evidence for it first. Does a balloon expand into itself, if it starts expanding faster? No. Neither is the universe running into itself. It's simply expanding outwards in all directions, exponentially. There are of course questions that haven't been totally explained, and there always will be, but that doesn't mean that a theory is wrong. Suppose you were to come across the remnants of a two car accident at an intersection. You see broken glass, car parts, and such, but you don't know what kind of cars were involved, and there are signal lights that are directing the traffic. Should you conclude then that there never was an accident? No. The proof shows that something happened. As for your valid question. Where did all of this energy come from? Again, the Big Bang theory was not designed to answer that question. It was only designed to explain the evidence of what we are seeing, that the universe had a beginning. The only book that has ever given a reasonable prophetic answer as to how our universe began, is the Bible. Gen.1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." and Isaiah 40: 26 "Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing." That's more reasonable than anything else that I've heard.

Brookesquest, I am with you all the way with that.  Fantastic.

 If the universe was smaller in the past then it was located somewhere, which means it must have a center. Using Hubble's Law and constant to determine the age of the universe also suggests that there is a center to it all. Because there is no center and using Hubble's Law for age is foolish, we have a problem with the credibility of the Big Bang theory.

Matter cannot be dense or get hot if it is spread out everywhere so the big bang could not have happened everywhere. Inflationary epoch is absurd and only a quick fix to put a bandaid on a bleeding theory.

The Big bang is man's inability to comprehend forever (or infinity).

The reason the Big Bang has lasted as long as it has is because of the debate with creationists and the fact that it sells BOOKS!

It's not about finding the truth, it is about making money. If there are any professional cosmologists who take the time to read this forum, I challenge any of you to a televised public debate on the Big Bang. There is no way you can show a model of the expanding universe that matches observations.

Even Einstein thought it was BS.

BQ 

 

Personally i feel the Big Bang Theory is the Scientific equivalent of the Creationist's Miraculous.

Either option is an unknown and either option requires the Laws of physics to break down at that instant and prior to the instant of creation.

Prior to the Big Bang, Its necessary for the Laws of Physics as we know then now, to be broken in some manner. The Laws have not yet formed as we know them, which in itself is unknowable since we have no reference to compare a universe with Laws and a Universe without our Laws. 

You cannot get something from nothing.
Every theory that proposes ways around this, are all based in theory and I propose will never be validated with any certainty.

 As for the instant of creation and prior to it, it is just as easy for me to conclude an Almighty entity "evoked" the universe as it is to believe the theoretical approach of Big Bangs from Nothing, other Multi verses which bubble forth and then pinch off into other Universes.

Either way is just as incredible and unknowable as the other.

If indeed an Intelligence does or did exist prior to this event, they would have the benefit of NOT having to follow any of the current Laws of Physics we observe today. Meaning anything would be possible for them and they would not be breaking any of the current laws we observe today.

I am not suggesting Creationism or ID is the right answer, but when you see the scientific alternatives you have to laugh and ask yourself, which is more incredible?

Pleae don't flame, I'm not trying to start anything,

 

Test,

 

 

 

 

 

 

brooksquest:

 Even Einstein thought it was BS.

That's not true.  Einstein was a Steady State kinda guy, and was troubled by the prdictions that Relativity made, among which were dark energy, black holes, and a Big Bang.  But he did stand by his work.  He just didn't live long enough to see the technology which verified his math.

The Big Bang, as it is currently understood, is the best scientific iterpretation of the evidence we have been able to generate so far.  That evidence, and our ability to interpret it, is just a few decades old.  We have only scratched the surface.  I'm sure that as our technology improves the theory will evolve.  If you don't like it you are free to embrace any alternative you wish, or to create your own. 

Just to clarify, let me offer a few points. First, the BB theory does not state the universe has no center. It is a logical conclusion which follows from the BB theory that we cannot find that center. At cosmologically distant epochs, there was no way to observe the universe and therefore the notion of a center is meaningless. That is not the same thing as saying there was/is no center.

brooksquest:

 If the universe was smaller in the past then it was located somewhere, which means it must have a center.

It is not logical to assume under the BB theory that there was a "somewhere" before the BB, or into which the BB expanded. The BB theory has nothing to say about that, empirically. If you accept the BB theory then you also accept the notion that you can't empirically discuss "before" t=0 nor anything "outside" the observable universe. You can speculate about it, but you can't discuss it empirically because it is beyond your ability to sense and measure it. There is nothing at all illogical about that.

As an example, let's say we're talking about a Black Box theory. We are confronted with a Black Box which is impermeable to measurement -- that is, we can sense the box itself, but not what is inside of it. If its temperature is very, very near absolute zero, then there are some logical assumptions we can make about what is NOT inside the Black Box (for example, a Big Bang, a supernova, or 18 medieval monks burning incense -- otherwise we could sense a different temperature). The same is true of the BB theory -- it simply gives us no view of the universe before or outside the currently observable universe.

Using Hubble's Law and constant to determine the age of the universe also suggests that there is a center to it all.

It is logical to assume that anything that has a measureable extent can also be said to have a center, or centroid.

Because there is no center and using Hubble's Law for age is foolish, we have a problem with the credibility of the Big Bang theory.

Tautological reasoning ... one thing doesn't follow from other. First, we can't assume there is no center. We can certainly state that we can't know where that center is, empirically. What is foolish about assuming that Hubble's Law can't be used to estimate an age? It might not be the latest way to do it, but it certainly is not illogical or foolish to do so. Finally, you can find reasons to distrust or misinterpret the tenets of the BBT, but the two you mention are not among them.

Matter cannot be dense or get hot if it is spread out everywhere so the big bang could not have happened everywhere.

If "everywhere" is defined -- as it is according to the BBT -- as a singularity, then it can, and indeed it must, have happened everywhere. According to BBT, it in fact created everywhere (all that there is).

Inflationary epoch is absurd and only a quick fix to put a bandaid on a bleeding theory.

Inflation fits observation. So, it can work. In your context, bandaid is a pejorative term. Since it works, the scientific way to attack it is to (a) show it does not fit observation or (b) does not fit observation as well as some other interpretation or (c) offer an alternative that is logically consistent and does, indeed, fit observation.

The Big bang is man's inability to comprehend forever (or infinity).

I would say it's man's attempt to explain the origin of the universe (which, according to BBT is not infinite).

The reason the Big Bang has lasted as long as it has is because of the debate with creationists and the fact that it sells BOOKS!

I think perhaps there is a misinterpretation of how much money a scientist realizes from the sale of books about cosmology ...

... There is no way you can show a model of the expanding universe that matches observations.

It certainly does match observations ... which is why it is part of the standard model. Otherwise, it would not be. Challenge the model, you challenge the observations, and vice-versa.

Even Einstein thought it was BS.

This part has been answered.

Hi Jeff,

Nice to hear from you.

The Big Bang Theory has changed dozens of times since it was first published. These changes happen whenever observations dictate them. What version do you have that says the universe has a center?

It is convenient so say we cannot talk about "before" the Big Bang. Close the door on an open mind. The Big Bang did not event time, we did, or at least we perceive it. Whatever motion was in place that caused the theoretically dense matter which resulted in the BB happened before the BB.

I know you believe strongly in what you consider to be observed proof of the BB. However, when I tell you that the current universe with Hubble's expansion and constant cannot be model, you better believe it's true.

I guess you also believe time wasn't invented until after the inflationary epoch so it would be okay for space and matter to inflate beyond the speed of light because time wasn't there yet to tell us it was a violation.

The universe is infinite and there is no reason to believe that a soul on a planet 7 billion light years due east of Earth could look due east of his world and see stars 7 billion light years away just as we do. and so on and so on...

The limit to the size of the universe is the limit of our imaginations, for some its small, for others its like the universe "infinite".

As far as money goes from the Big Bang you have probably never heard of anti-religious lobbyist and financiers who poor money into the scientific community at a rate better than that of the right wing religious yahoos get from old folks with one foot in the coffin. These people throw money into the pit because of books they read on both sides of the issue.

Doubting the BB is not scientific blasphemy. But there is also no reason to follow it blindly. There are more holes in it than the local golf course and some of them are huge.

Which do you believe Jeff? Is space expanding and we ride along or is matter flying through space?

Pick one and I will show you how it invalidates HUBLAW and observations.

BQ
 

brooksquest:

... What version do you have that says the universe has a center?

Yep, there's nothing wrong with change as long as it fits the observations. I do not "have a version" that says there is a center ... I was simply agreeing with the logic that if something has an extent, then it probably has a center. Notice I mentioned "centroid" ... there is a fine distinction between the two (a mathematical one). It doesn't matter from a practical standpoint since the extent of the universe is so vast we can't locate either. The fact that we can't say definitively "the center is here, or there" doesn't mean there can't be one. The BBT itself does not say there is, or is not, a center. Most explanations of the BBT, however, echo the sentiment that we can't specify where a center might be. Furthermore, it is not practical to talk about where the BB itself occurred (since the BBT says the BB itself created spacetime -- that is why we talk about it having occurred everywhere).

It is convenient so say we cannot talk about "before" the Big Bang. Close the door on an open mind.

No, it's not a convenience (nor is it a cop-out). The BBT holds that the initial event is as far back in time as we can "know" anything from a scientific standpoint. You can get all mystical, or hypothetical, or even mathematical (branes and so forth), but you simply can't observe anything earlier because beyond (further back than) the earliest instant of photon decoupling there is nothing distinct that can be observed (because prior to that point the universe was opaque).

The Big Bang did not event time, we did, or at least we perceive it. Whatever motion was in place that caused the theoretically dense matter which resulted in the BB happened before the BB.

... and is, therefore (according to BBT), "unknowable" scientifically. Conjecture all you like, of course. Conjecture is fine as long as you don't dress it up as theory. The BBT is notably silent on a cause: any BBT cause is unknowable by direct observation.

I know you believe strongly in what you consider to be observed proof of the BB. However, when I tell you that the current universe with Hubble's expansion and constant cannot be model, you better believe it's true.

Let's separate belief (willfulness) from plain old ordinary science. I don't know where you are getting the idea that the BBT can't currently model the observable universe. I have supplied you plenty of references in other posts and PMs that demonstrate that it can.

I guess you also believe time wasn't invented until after the inflationary epoch so it would be okay for space and matter to inflate beyond the speed of light because time wasn't there yet to tell us it was a violation.

I take it you didn't read any of the aforementioned references. If you had, you'd understand that cosmic inflation also expands the way we measure. Once you accept that, then there is no conflict at all.

It is not necessary to hold that "time wasn't invented until after the inflationary epoch" ... you can't talk about causation without talking about what existed before the BB, and -- once again -- there is no directly observable evidence of what came before (the BB wiped it out).

The universe is infinite ...

I do not believe that. Contrary to what you may think, I do read about ideas that oppose BBT. There is not one shred of demonstrable observational evidence that the universe is infinite. You obviously do believe the universe to be infinite, or at least that it could be infinite. So we differ.

and there is no reason to believe that a soul on a planet 7 billion light years due east of Earth could look due east of his world and see stars 7 billion light years away just as we do. and so on and so on...

Forgetting, for the sake of discussion, that "east' has no meaning in the universe at large, I take it that what you mean is that two observers halfway across the universe from one another are looking in the same direction (along the same line) ... is that right? If that is correct, then why would the view be substantially different at large scales. At large scales, the universe is demonstrably homogenous and isotropic (for as far back in time as we can see with today's technology). Not perfectly so (there are bumps and ripples), but not signficantly different. The key phrase there is at large scales. Since we're talking cosmic distances, then it would look essentially the same to each observer. There is every reason to believe that, going by the observational evidence we have in hand today (WMAP, 2MASS, COBE, etc.). It does, however, depend on having neither observer very near "the edge" ... whatever and wherever that might be. Which is why I predicated my response on the idea that the observers are not more than halfway across the universe from one another. Hmmm ... maybe I should err on the safe side and say one-third?

Why would you think the view would be essentially different for one of the observers? Or did I misunderstand your premise?

The limit to the size of the universe is the limit of our imaginations, for some its small, for others its like the universe "infinite".

Not to denigrate the importance of imagination and creativity, but when we talk about a scientific theory (such as the BBT) we are not talking about "wild ideas" ... we are talking about testable, verifiable, or falsifiable hypotheses that have survived the tests to fit observational evidence. String and M Theory are not per se testable so I don't put them in the same class as the BBT. How is imagination testable? Many scientists can be said to be highly imaginative. That doesn't mean that everything they think or say is accepted theory. It certainly can help to be imaginative and creative when developing hypotheses, but the hypotheses that underpin accepted theory have, by virtue of passing the requisite tests, gone beyond imagination into acceptance.

The fact that one can imagine the universe to be infinite does not mean it is so. If one has a hypothesis that says the universe is infinite (some proponents of the Steady State Theory made such claims), then it should be verifiable or falsifiable to be classed as science.

Again, I reiterate there is nothing inherently wrong with imagination and creativity.

As far as money goes from the Big Bang you have probably never heard of anti-religious lobbyist and financiers who poor money into the scientific community at a rate better than that of the right wing religious yahoos get from old folks with one foot in the coffin. These people throw money into the pit because of books they read on both sides of the issue.

Well, if you qualify scientific papers and conference proceedings as the books in your argument, then my reply would be that these are the legitimate currency of practical science. They are part and parcel of how science works. A religious or other text from an "authority" is not science. Such texts are not part of how science works. That doesn't mean they are invalid, it just means they are not science and are not admissable as "evidence" in a scientific debate. And in any case we will not discuss them here.

Finance is a big deal in science (as in other pursuits). There are too few dollars to go around (ask a  professional scientist!). A scientist needs funding for his research. NASA needs funding for its programs, which generate data for the scientific community. Colleges and universities need funding for research. The fact that there is money involved should not taint the process. It is a necessary part of the process. It is a necessary part of almost any goal-oriented social process.

I misunderstood your earlier comment, it appears. I read it as scientist/authors profiting from the sale of books. If you mean the scientific process benefiting from investment encouraged by books (to include the scientific papers and proceedings) -- especially if you mean to include both sides of the argument -- then what is wrong with that?

Doubting the BB is not scientific blasphemy.

I did not say, nor do I feel, that it is.

But there is also no reason to follow it blindly.

I did not say, nor do I feel, that anyone should.

There are more holes in it than the local golf course ...

I have not counted them, but there very well may be more than 18 ...

and some of them are huge.

None of them are large enough to have unseated the BBT as the currently accepted model among the majority of cosmologists. That is how I would define huge: large enough to call the model seriously into question.

Which do you believe Jeff? Is space expanding and we ride along or is matter flying through space?

Yes. I don't simply believe it. I have read the data that supports it (and I have pointed you to it).

Pick one and I will show you how it invalidates HUBLAW and observations.

OK. Professional astronomers routinely measure the redshifts of quasars and distant galaxies and compared them to the redshifts of stars near enough to have a measurable parallax and to supernovae and Cephied variables which act as standard candles for calculating intergalactic distances.The technology for doing this is very, very good now ... orders of magnitude better than in Hubble's day. Those are measurements, observations, and empirical data that fail to invalidate Hubble's Law.

While there is ongoing debate about the specific value of the cosmological constant, it is a defined quantity that is used to determine the state of the universe (its general expansion/contraction/steady-state coefficient). I'm aware of no observations that show the value to equate to a steady-state universe. Recent observations give a value that supports not only expansion, but also acceleration. How does this "invalidate" Hubble's Law?

Thanks Jeff,

However, you did not answer my question. In your mind... which do you think is happening?

Is matter traveling THROUGH space as the universe expands - or - is space expanding and matter with it?

I said pick the one you believe and I will show you how Hubble's Law and constant become invalid. I did not ask you to defend Hubble's Law. So... tell me which one you believe. You... not your references.

The part about looking any direction and seeing the same thing leads to infinity, not the edge of the universe. I respect your belief that the universe is not infinite but wouldn't that create the possibility for multiple Big Bangs? What do you think the nothing is beyond the edge of your limited universe?

If we discovered a Type II 30 billion light years away then the CMB data, Hubble's Law and the Big Bang theory would all be flushed down the toilet. The day is coming Jeff when this will happen. Our technology is improving each year and as you know, last week we had a supernova explode 7 billion light years away that was said to be visible to the naked eye for one hour. (No one reported seeing it yet) But our satelites confirmed the luminousity.

Please think over the above and just tell me what you think... then I will give you my proof okay?

Thanks Jeff

BQ 

 

 

brooksquest:

Thanks Jeff,

However, you did not answer my question. In your mind... which do you think is happening?

Is matter traveling THROUGH space as the universe expands - or - is space expanding and matter with it?

My "Yes" reply meant "both": locally, matter travels through spacetime; on cosmic scales spacetime expands and carries matter along with it. There is ample observational that both are happening.

I said pick the one you believe and I will show you how Hubble's Law and constant become invalid. I did not ask you to defend Hubble's Law. So... tell me which one you believe. You... not your references.

OK, pick either one. It can be demonstrated that both are happening. I explained that in my previous response. The data defends Hubble's Law, so I don't need to do it. Quoting references helps when you don't derive the data yourself. It happens I can derive the data myself. As part of my college coursework in astronomy, I observed and photographed spectra of distant galaxies. Since then I have done it with a quasar. I have calculated the redshifts and compared them to nearer objects. Those observations fit Hubble's Law to any reasonable approximation. My college data fit within Hubble's measurement uncertainties because technology not available to Hubble was available to me. Today's students can make these measurements using telescopes and spectrographs via the Internet and need not spend hours shivering in mountaintop observatories. Today, any amateur with with $20,000 to spare can buy the equipment needed and learn to operate it fairly quickly -- and the newer technologies provide data that's even better than was available in the 1970s.

So, I understand the principles involved in making the observations. Tell me how you'll disprove them or provide a better fit. I'm curious.

The part about looking any direction and seeing the same thing leads to infinity, not the edge of the universe. I respect your belief that the universe is not infinite but wouldn't that create the possibility for multiple Big Bangs?

Philosophically, an infinite universe guarantees that somewhere, somewhen, all possibilites will become realities. Practically, you might have to wait forever for the one you anticipate to occur.  So, that's no help. However, it's not necessary for the universe to be infinite in order to have multiple Big Bangs. Each one will wipe out any trace of the others, so there is no way to tell:

1. That more than one has happened.
2. When and where a previous one happened.
3. When and where a subsequent one will happen.

The data to make such determinations are permanently missing (at least hidden by the glow of the one we call The BB).

Some conjecture the existence of White Holes, saying that they operate in reverse to black holes: matter and energy spew forth from them (perhaps from hidden dimensions) rather than disappearing into them (perhaps into hidden dimensions). No one knows for sure. There appears to be no way to test for what happens "outside" so this remains in the realm of philosophy, not science.

What do you think the nothing is beyond the edge of your limited universe?

I'm a proponent of the BBT. From the BBT we understand that we can't know what lies beyond. It does not say that nothing, or something, lies beyond -- only that we can't know about it. So, I don't know what lies beyond, or what came before, or even what the initial conditions were like. That doesn't trouble me scientifically. Philosophically I have my own thoughts about the matter, but they don't count here. My own non-scientific beliefs lie in a realm we have agreed not to discuss on the Forum.

If we discovered a Type II 30 billion light years away then the CMB data, Hubble's Law and the Big Bang theory would all be flushed down the toilet.

Why? In order to discover such an event we'd need technology far advanced to that which we have today. Perhaps in the future we will develop that technology. There is no reason not to believe that such a thing could happen (either the event or development of a method to observe it).

Assuming we observed an event that appears to be older than current estimates of the age of the universe, theories would need amending. That is the way it works. Until it happens, however, it isn't very profitable to worry about it. The proper thing to do would be to continually improve observational techniques and technology, and that is precisely what is happening today.

The day is coming Jeff when this will happen.

While I don't doubt that exciting and currently-thought-improbable things will occur, there is no hard evidence leading us to expect it. We can let our imaginations run ... but we shouldn't let them rule us.

Our technology is improving each year and as you know, last week we had a supernova explode 7 billion light years away that was said to be visible to the naked eye for one hour. (No one reported seeing it yet) But our satelites confirmed the luminousity.

The reports I read showed the gamma-ray burst was visible for less than 30 seconds. I have read no reports of visible observations, though there are some confirmation images made within a few minutes to a couple of hours of the Swift GRB observations. The event itself is not troubling to theory.

Please think over the above and just tell me what you think... then I will give you my proof okay?

NP

Locally, matter is observed to move through space and that at great distances space itself is expanding. It is also currently believed that anyone, anywhere in the universe would observe the same thing from where they are. So to them, the space around our galaxy would be expanding and we would be riding along.

The current model states that the universe is expanding and that the expansion appears to be accelerating. In other words it is expanding now faster than it did in the past.

There are 3 possibilities that exist to explain how Earth's place in an expanding universe would result in what we observe. Only one supports Hubble's Law and Constant.

Poss (1)

Earth is motionless and truly is the center of the expanding universe. This of course is not true because we know that we are moving. However, if we were motionless, then Hubble's Law and Constant would be very accurate if of course red-shift was only caused by recession.

Poss (2)

The entire observable universe is part of an expanding radii. This would mean that everything is moving the same direction but at different relative velocities. If this is the case then we would be travelling away from old light on one side of Earth and towards old light on the other. This in itself tells us that the constant would no longer be constant but "variable", depending on where you are in the universe. 

Poss (3)

The expansion is moving away from a point somewhere within the observable universe. This would place a portion of objects on one side of Earth expanding much much faster than the other and would again result in a Hubble variable, not a constant.

I hope you can visualize these. If you can think of another possible motion let me know.

Another interesting point you made was about non-scientific thoughts. Well consider this my friend: Someone on the edge of our observable universe (east of us) might not know about any galaxies to his west beyond the Milky Way. He would conclude scientifically that we are the farthest object he can observe and that would be the size of his universe. Because we observe objects at the edge of our western horizon we have just doubled the size of his universe. Did we do it scientifically? You could say yes. (or no). There is no reason to believe that he could double the size of our universe the same way. Just because we can't observe something may mean scientifically that we can't discuss it. However, we know scientifically that the radius of the visible universe in our direction is double what he thinks it is.

Cheers,

BQ 

 

 

brooksquest:

Locally, matter is observed to move through space and that at great distances space itself is expanding. It is also currently believed that anyone, anywhere in the universe would observe the same thing from where they are.

I agree. Current theory, and observational data, indicate that at cosmological scales the universe is homogenous and isotropic.

So to them, the space around our galaxy would be expanding and we would be riding along.

Yes, this is consistent with the inflationary model. The effects of inflation on local scales (anywhere) are less than the effects of gravity, so that is what you (or they) would observe.

The current model states that the universe is expanding and that the expansion appears to be accelerating. In other words it is expanding now faster than it did in the past.

Yep.

There are 3 possibilities that exist to explain how Earth's place in an expanding universe would result in what we observe. Only one supports Hubble's Law and Constant.

Poss (1)

Earth is motionless and truly is the center of the expanding universe. This of course is not true because we know that we are moving. However, if we were motionless, then Hubble's Law and Constant would be very accurate if of course red-shift was only caused by recession.

OK

Poss (2)

The entire observable universe is part of an expanding radii.

"An" means one but "radii" means more than one. This is confusing.

This would mean that everything is moving the same direction but at different relative velocities.

"Velocity" means speed and direction. So, to say "the same direction but at different velocities" is internally inconsistent.

If you mean that everything is moving in the same (a single) direction, then the correction would be that things are moving at different rates, not velocities. If the expansion is radial but in many directions, then observers at vastly different locations would have experiences views similar to those from our location, which is in accord with BBT and inflation.

 If this is the case then we would be travelling away from old light on one side of Earth and towards old light on the other.

Since the Earth rotates, this is in fact what happens. However, the effect is very, very small  because the rate is small (the rotation rate of the Earth is not a cosmic velocity). A similar thing happens to observations made six months apart, when Earth is on opposite sides of its orbit about the Sun, and the target is in a direction along the plane of Earth's orbit. This is another indication that Earth moves.

More importantly, both of these are local effects and do not change the cosmological landscape.

This in itself tells us that the constant would no longer be constant but "variable", depending on where you are in the universe. 

No, measurements supporting calculation of the constant take Earth's relative motions into account. The same thing happens with a police car's radar gun: Different corrections are applied to the calculations when the police car is standing still than when it is moving, and the corrections are scaled according the police car's velocity (both speed and direction). Otherwise speeding tickets wouldn't stand up in court. Astronomers have been doing spectroscopy far longer than policemen have been using radar.

Poss (3)

The expansion is moving away from a point somewhere within the observable universe.

OK, but let's not forget that the point likewise could lie outside the observable universe. The observable universe does not necessarily represent the whole universe, just the part we can measure.

This would place a portion of objects on one side of Earth expanding much much faster than the other and would again result in a Hubble variable, not a constant.

Give me that hint again. Aside from the previous discussion about the effects of Earth's rotation and revolution, how does this relate? Do you mean that in some directions as viewed from Earth we observe different redshifts than we observe in other directions? The data show there are small variations that are target-specific, but no general dependence on direction ... only on distance. Other corrections must be taken into account: galactic rotation, for example, skews the red-shift, but the effect is most pronounced for nearby galaxies (which may be millions of light-years distant), so "nearby" here again is a relative term. Furthermore, nearby indicates local or at least non-cosmological. 

I hope you can visualize these. If you can think of another possible motion let me know.

Another interesting point you made was about non-scientific thoughts.

I said there is nothing wrong with exercising creativity and imagination when developing an idea, but a scientific theory requires rigorous and consistent logic in development, and verifiable or falsifiable claims which can be tested independently of the originator. So, with those rules in mind we need to see data to support the hypotheses.

That would mean you would need to supply data (by reference, for example) that support the notion that -- let's say -- your third point invalidates Hubble's Law and/or renders the cosmological constant incorrect or meaningless. It's not enough simply to apply "logic" -- you must have a testable hypothesis that fits observational data -- otherwise the test fails.

Well consider this my friend: Someone on the edge of our observable universe (east of us) might not know about any galaxies to his west beyond the Milky Way. He would conclude scientifically that we are the farthest object he can observe and that would be the size of his universe. Because we observe objects at the edge of our western horizon we have just doubled the size of his universe.

How is it that we manage to see further in his direction than he can see? I didn't get that part.

Did we do it scientifically? You could say yes. (or no). There is no reason to believe that he could double the size of our universe the same way.

Yes, there is. If the universe at cosmological scales is isotropic (and the data we have now shows that to be true), then by definition our observations must be qualitatively similar. That means that using the same observational technology and methods the distant observer must get the same result as the local observer.

Just because we can't observe something may mean scientifically that we can't discuss it.

It means that we can discuss it philosophically, or as hypothesis, but not as theory. Theory requires tested hypotheses, so the steps up the ladder toward the BB as Theory might go something like this:

1. Wild thought.
2. Clever idea.
3. Testable hypotheses.
4. At least one line of originator's research validating at least one hypothesis.
5. Peer review.
6. Critique.
7. Possible amendment or extension.
8. Reviewer acceptance.
9. Publication.
10. Response.
11. Verification or falsification of one or more of the original tenets or hypotheses.
12. Possible Revision.
13. New hypotheses or extensions.
14. Rewind to step 4 and repeat.
15. Absent further challenges and given acceptance by the preponderance of peers, elevation from Hypothesis to Theory.

And at any time the hypotheses are ascending the ladder toward Theory some hitherto unforeseen technology or methodology might call the data into question in a different way, leading to looping back through some or all of these steps. It has, in fact, happened many times along the way, but never invalidating the original BB premise in toto.

However, we know scientifically that the radius of the visible universe in our direction is double what he thinks it is.

I think it might be a reasonable assumption (logical) that for a given pair of observers separated by cosmological distances, one of the two might be in a location from which it is apparent that the observable horizon is less -- or more -- distant than it appears to the other observer. However, it is equally reasonable -- and we have defined and measured it thus, to be isotropic -- to assume the two observers will see no difference. We have observed it to be thus, to the limits of our abilities (as (I mentioned in an earlier post).

How would you explain that the more distant observer could see a larger observable horizon than the nearer observer (where I take your original premise, point 3, to mean that one observer is nearer the center, or the edge, than the other)? By what means do we make such an observation?

For such a situation to exist, all of the following must be true:

1. The universe must not be isotropic at cosmological scales.
2. One observer must be nearer the center, or the edge, than the other.
3. One observer must have the means to know this (number 2).
4. We must know the shape of the universe to be able to make your assumption in the first place.

I am not aware of data to support any of the four assertions above. We can logically test assertions by assuming one or more is true, but once we have come up with a conclusion then it must be amenable to observation and test ... otherwise it is a philosophical premise, not a scientific one.

Earlier you made reference to an infinite universe. That is another option, currently without supporting data, that could change the proposition. We have not yet found a way to make that assumption positive (by test).

Edit note: I re-read Gamow's The Creation of the Universe last night. This is a later work than his original release. In it, he interestingly mentions his belief that the Universe might be infinite. He also mentions that the effects of local expansion are primarily thermal. While both of those assumptions may be incorrect (the latter certainly is), neither invalidates Hubble's proposal that the Universe is expanding and that the more distant a galaxy appears to be, the faster its recessional velocity.