How far.

[MigL]

Using simple gas laws, if the universe was at Hydrogen combination temperature ( approx. 3500 deg ), 300 mil yrs after the Big Bang event ( approx. 13.5 bil yrs ago ), and is at 2.7 deg currently, then it has expanded by over 1000 times.

This is volume, so separati0ns would have increased by over 10 times in the same period.

[pavelcherepan]

Using simple gas laws, if the universe was at Hydrogen combination temperature ( approx. 3500 deg ), 300 mil yrs after the Big Bang event ( approx. 13.5 bil yrs ago ), and is at 2.7 deg currently, then it has expanded by over 1000 times.

This is volume, so separati0ns would have increased by over 10 times in the same period.

 

MigL, I think recombination is supposed to be 380 thousand years after the Big Bang.

 

 

Yes but very rarely.

 

No. Human intuition works well for finding food and running away from predators, as this is something it evolved to do. It doesn't work well at all in science. Most of the time the intuitive answer is the wrong one.

Edited June 8, 2017 by pavelcherepan

[MigL]

Ooops !

[beecee]

 

1. Suppose we had a triple planet system that orbit each other and of quite different masses. We could find an average clock rate for the system by checking how fast a cock runs at the surface of each. We could do the same thing for our galaxy or a volume of space with a radius of a hundred million light years. If we look at the clock rate for the Universe thirteen billion years ago when it's volume was much smaller it's clock rate would be slower than the clock rate for today's Universe. This brings up an interesting question. We all know that velocity is determined by dividing the distance traveled by time. If this is true then the speed of light in the early Universe would be greater than it is today. If we were to go back to just after the BB, say 10^-42 seconds then the speed of light could have been millions if not trillions of times faster than today a neat explanation for inflation.

 

The clock rate is always 1 second per second for anyone measuring it from that same frame of reference.

Time dilation, or the rate at which any clock ticks, will certainly change from the reference from someone in another frame of reference.

The fixed nature of the speed of light,"c" leads us to the solution [special Relativity] that it is space and time which is of a variable nature according to ones frame of reference.

The apparent clock rate of the Universe 13 billion years ago, from our perspective now, appears "slow" because of the constant finite nature of speed of light at "c".

Edited June 10, 2017 by beecee

[stefan r]

 

 

Citation needed.

 

 

But you don't need a citation?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0908.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1566.pdf

 

Light is redshifted when it is climbing out of a gravity well. Going into a void is the same thing. The cosmic microwave background is redshifted in areas that have large voids. Because the universe expanded while the light was crossing the void the trip out of the void did not blueshift the light back.

 

Using simple gas laws, if the universe was at Hydrogen combination temperature ( approx. 3500 deg ), 300 mil yrs after the Big Bang event ( approx. 13.5 bil yrs ago ), and is at 2.7 deg currently, then it has expanded by over 1000 times.

This is volume, so separati0ns would have increased by over 10 times in the same period.

 

No. This is wrong. Light gets emitted by hydrogen and travels across a vacuum. It does not matter what temperature the hydrogen is at when the light gets to the observer. The light is only effected by the temperature at the time of emission. The wavelength of light is stretched as the universe expands. Also wavelengths are stretched if light is catching up with a moving target.

 

When they list the temperature of the CMB it just means the frequency of light is proportional to the frequency emitted by gas at that temperature. Alternatively a black body at 2.7K will be in equilibrium with the CMB and will adsorb and radiate an equal flux.

[MigL]

You just said that light, crossing a void that has expanded, is red-shifted.

 

Then you accuse me of being wrong, and say that light which was emitted at a temperature of several thousand degrees ( which does not allow protons to combine with electrons ), is NOT red-shifted down to an equivalent temperature of 2.7 degrees by an expansion of over three orders of magnitude.

 

I think you're a little confused.

[Strange]

No. This is wrong. Light gets emitted by hydrogen and travels across a vacuum. It does not matter what temperature the hydrogen is at when the light gets to the observer. The light is only effected by the temperature at the time of emission. The wavelength of light is stretched as the universe expands. Also wavelengths are stretched if light is catching up with a moving target.

 

When they list the temperature of the CMB it just means the frequency of light is proportional to the frequency emitted by gas at that temperature. Alternatively a black body at 2.7K will be in equilibrium with the CMB and will adsorb and radiate an equal flux.

 

 

That is exactly what MigL just said.

[AbnormallyHonest]

 

with respect "about" means it is an estimate, has errors, might not be exact etc. the rate of expansion from the first seconds of the universe till now means that you cannot make straight line predictions about the size versus the age of the universe. 13.8 billion years ago the observable universe was small (note the observable bit - the entire universe could well have been infinite) - now it is is about 46Glyrs radius. Hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong but I think the observable universe was about one eighth of its present size 13 billion years ago - which shows how much expansion took place in those first 800Myrs

 

So are you suggesting that light we see of the Universe from 13 billion light years away only represents 1/8 of it's present size? So the size of the actual Universe today is about 8x the size of it at 26 billion light years in diameter?

 

At 13 billion light years away, isn't that the state of the Universe 13 billion years ago?

Thirteen billion years ago the Universe was about 1/13 of it's size today. If we look at a galaxy 13 billion light years away that means we are looking at light coming out of a gravity well created by the entire mass of the Universe. When we make measurements on that light do we take into account the redshift caused by that gravity well?

 

This was something that I suggested on this forum once. I suggested that according to Newton, all mass has a mean gravitational center that is the average of all the constituents that make it up. That being said, the entire Universe must have a mean gravitational center, and from our symmetrical view of it, we would be at or very near to that gravitational center. If this is true, than any light from us moving outward would also be subject to that gravitational well, possibly producing a red shift of the sun's light the farther out it is seen from us. The same would be true of light that originated 13 billion light years away because it would be emanating from the mean gravitational center of it's perspective of the Universe.

Edited June 28, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[beecee]

 

So are you suggesting that light we see of the Universe from 13 billion light years away only represents 1/8 of it's present size? So the size of the actual Universe today is about 8x the size of it at 26 billion light years in diameter?

 

The observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter: You have not allowed for expansion.

The Universe is around 13.8 billion years old.

[AbnormallyHonest]

The observable universe is around 96 billion L/years in diameter: You have not allowed for expansion.

The Universe is around 13.8 billion years old.

 

So you're suggesting that the furthest objects out that are seen, produced their light around 13.8 billion years ago, but now appear to us from 48 billion light years away? Or are you just projecting where those objects should be now, according to the "red shift". If the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, than the light of the furthest objects out there originated 13.8 billion years ago. To imply that it is much larger due to the red shift is speculative.

 

The diameter of the Observable Universe is 27.4 billion light years in diameter, and the red shift of the light from that far out suggests that the objects that produced the light have since translated the light of the known spectrum to a different wavelength. That would now place those objects at around 48 billion light years from Earth, but that are not observed at those distances, just estimated as a way to explain the difference in the spectral absorption versus the absorption of matter to light that originated more locally.

 

From the conventional model of an expanding Universe, we can only see light that has been given enough to time to reach us, limiting the viewability of the Universe as directly proportionate to it's age. The only way you'd be able to observe a Universe that was 96 Billion light years in diameter is if that view and our current view were somehow included within viewability that is directly proportionate to it's age. To include the 96 billion light year diameter, you'd have to exclude the fact that our view of the Universe is increasing.

[Strange]

You should probably read this, on common misconceptions about the size of the observable universe

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions_on_its_size

[Bird11dog]

Honest, good post.I have given up trying to convince anyone because there are to few with any reasoning powers.

[Strange]

 

So you're suggesting that the furthest objects out that are seen, produced their light around 13.8 billion years ago, but now appear to us from 48 billion light years away? Or are you just projecting where those objects should be now, according to the "red shift". If the Universe is 13.8 billion years old, than the light of the furthest objects out there originated 13.8 billion years ago. To imply that it is much larger due to the red shift is speculative.

 

 

The light originated from a point about 4.5 billion light years away. It took the light about 13 billion light years to reach us because the distance was increasing as light travelled. By now, this galaxies are about 46 billion light years away.

[beecee]

Honest, good post.I have given up trying to convince anyone because there are to few with any reasoning powers.

 

 

The reasoning powers that have modeled our universe, is based on observational and experimental data, from state of the art equipment that has retrieved this data, professional astronomers and astrophysicists that have interpreted this data, and many others at the coal face with their heads down and backsides up, certainly not from anyone on any public science forum, opened to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Those are the facts.

[AbnormallyHonest]

You should probably read this, on common misconceptions about the size of the observable universe

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions_on_its_size

 

That article says nothing to me other than what we see doesn't really make sense, but some guys got together and finally agreed on an explanation that validates already accepted theories that were formulated before the information that we have today was available.

[Strange]

 

That article says nothing to me other than what we see doesn't really make sense, but some guys got together and finally agreed on an explanation that validates already accepted theories that were formulated before the information that we have today was available.

 

 

So you are incapable of understanding what you read, then? That would explain a lot.

 

Although, you are right that the expansion of the universe was predicted by theory before it was detected. Which is why it is generally accepted as the best model. As opposed to the incoherent ramblings of some ignorant guy on the internet.

[AbnormallyHonest]

 

 

The reasoning powers that have modeled our universe, is based on observational and experimental data, from state of the art equipment that has retrieved this data, professional astronomers and astrophysicists that have interpreted this data, and many others at the coal face with their heads down and backsides up, certainly not from anyone on any public science forum, opened to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Those are the facts.

 

I suppose that's why as soon as they collected all this data, all the pieces just seemed to fall in place just like a square peg in a square hole. No inconsistencies, no controversies, no misconceptions, no disagreements, and everyone couldn't be happier with the current model that all that data produced. I don't know how I could've missed that.

 

Just because I didn't have any part in collecting the facts, doesn't mean I can't utilize them in exactly the same way as those that did. Winning the lottery doesn't make you a financial wizard, although it does give you capital in invest with. Just because I don't have any capital does not mean I wouldn't know a solid investment when I see one.

Edited June 28, 2017 by AbnormallyHonest

[beecee]

 

That article says nothing to me other than what we see doesn't really make sense, but some guys got together and finally agreed on an explanation that validates already accepted theories that were formulated before the information that we have today was available.

From my experience on a past now defunct science forum, sometimes we have certain people, obviously self indulgent or with an agenda, that simply refuses to learn, and totally ignores the scientific methodology.

Obviously their only outlet and yearning for notoriety are forums such as this.

 

I suppose that's why as soon as they collected all this data, all the pieces just seemed to fall in place just like a square peg in a square hole. No inconsistencies, no controversies, no misconceptions, no disagreements, and everyone couldn't be happier with the current model that all that data produced. I don't know how I could've missed that.

 

 

You missed it because you are obviously not in tuned with what data has been discovered, how to interpret that data, and ignorance of the knowledge that leads to today's cosmological models.

Disagreements, inconsistencies and misconceptions, occur all the time in all disciplines of science, but in time most are fathomed out and agreed upon, by further observations, further experiments, and continued testing, by the professionals with access to the state of the art equpiment which you and I do not have.