Galaxy Spin

[Klaynos]

When you add 12 billion light years plus twelve billion light years you are not adding up time but distance. One mile plus one mile eqauls two miles.

 

Which also does not add linearly when you're dealing with moving objects which we are... This is SR....

 

I'd also like to state I agree with mooeypoo everything is NOT spinning.... planets and above are mostly orbiting it seems, but only mostly.... And that's just the ones we observe which because we're orbiting and space is a big place...

[jeff Mitchel]

Moo, You asked for an explanation of my logic, fair enough. I look at the big bang and scatch my head. Everything poofed out of something called a singularity or whatever. Uh, nobody knows what that is, or where it came from, but we know what happened the first trillionth second, We are expanding like a balloon or top of a loaf of raisin bread (which doesn't hold water because it's all isotropic.) We are accelerating because of something called dark energy, and light is bending because of something called dark matter. Nobody knows what they are either. And according to the posts 24 is not larger than 13.7 and light stops at 13.7 billion ly. And you're questioning my logic?? My theory doesn't use raisin bread.

[Klaynos]

Moo, You asked for an explanation of my logic, fair enough. I look at the big bang and scatch my head. Everything poofed out of something called a singularity or whatever. Uh, nobody knows what that is, or where it came from, but we know what happened the first trillionth second, We are expanding like a balloon or top of a loaf of raisin bread (which doesn't hold water because it's all isotropic.) We are accelerating because of something called dark energy, and light is bending because of something called dark matter. Nobody knows what they are either. And according to the posts 24 is not larger than 13.7 and light stops at 13.7 billion ly. And you're questioning my logic?? My theory doesn't use raisin bread.

 

Light bends because of gravity... it's just in some cases there is not enough normal matter to account for the gravity effects we see... No big bang would not change this.

 

Light does not 'stop' after 13.7b ly...

 

You need to make some predictions, and match EVERY single piece of evidence that BB theory matches before you get to replace it so far you've done nothing, it's NOT A THEORY!

[jeff Mitchel]

I agree light bends because of gravity. I disagree the gravity is caused by dark matter. If light does not stop at 13.7b ly and continues on doesn't this support my theory. I'm saying if you can see a galaxy 15b ly away this disproves all the data wmap(the leading authority) has on the cbr. And if the cbr is wrong it only follows that the bb which relies heavily on the cbr is wrong.

[Edtharan]

To disprove the Big Bang. You are on top of the north pole with a telescope, look straight up and see a galaxy "A" 12 billion light years away. Another person is on the south pole and looks down, whoops, I mean straight up and sees a galaxy "B" 12 billion light years away. An entity on galaxy "A" looking through a telescope past earth would see galaxy "B" at 24 billion light years. This would seem to prove that wmap mapping the cbr, giving the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years with a 1% chance of error is totally wrong. If the cbr is wrong, then the big bang; using the cbr as its' pillar is wrong, and comes tumbling down.

This doesn't disprove the Big Bang (Expansion theory). According to what we know of physics, Matter can't move through space faster than the speed of light (if it starts from a speed less than the speed of light). But this says nothing about how fast space can expand (and carry matter along with it).

 

During the early universe (according to the expansion model), the Universe whent through a rapid expansion phase. In this phase the size of the universe could have expanded faster than the speed of light.

 

The results of this would be that although light onbly extends the 13.7 billion years (as that is how far it has been able to travel since the BB), space would extend far beyond that.

 

So, according to what we know of physics, this scenario that you have described is perfectly valid and does not disprove the Big Bang.

 

You asked for an explanation of my logic, fair enough. I look at the big bang and scatch my head. Everything poofed out of something called a singularity or whatever. Uh, nobody knows what that is, or where it came from, but we know what happened the first trillionth second, We are expanding like a balloon or top of a loaf of raisin bread (which doesn't hold water because it's all isotropic.)

Just because you are having trouble understanding something does not mean it is wrong. Just because any doesn't understand something fully does not mean it is wrong.

 

If completel understanding is the criteria for correctness, then according to that "logic": Relitivity is wrong. Scientists do not fully understand relitivity. And as complete understanding seem to be your criteria for something to be correct, then accoring to that, it must therefore be wrong.

 

To illustrate this point further:

What is 1+1?

 

You should have an answer of 2. But do you understand why? Can you explain why? Do you understand all aspects mathematics? If you don't then you don't have a complete understanding and thereofre according to your criteria it must then be wrong.

 

Understanding is not necessary for something to be correct.

 

So, just because you don't understand the BB, does not make it incorrect.

 

The Balloon and Raisin loaf anaolgies are just that: Analogies. The Universe is 4+ dimensions (3+ dimensional surface and 1 of time). The balloon and raisin loaf analogies are a 2 dimensional surface with time. So we have had to simiplify them by at least 1 dimension, and make it out of a different "Stuff" than the universe. So, if you are basing your distase for these analogies based on the fact that they are not exact models of the BB process, then rethink your problems with them and take into account that they are not ment to be exactly the same as the BB.

 

To better correct the Balloon and Raisin loaf analogies, you have to allow the raisins in the loaf or the dots on the balloon to be able to move. If nearby dots could attract each other (gravity) and therefore move towards each other, then you will get some dots mvoing towards each other but the majority moving away from each other. In fact you can take it further, you should only see nearby dots moving towards each other (with an occasional distant one if it has been gravitationally accellerated fast enough).

 

Gess what, this is exactly what telescopic observations have shown. So, thereofre the evidence that we have exactly matches what is predicted by the Expansion (Big Bang) theory.

 

Fo rthe Universe to be spinning, we should see most of the nearby galaxies moving in the same direction, so only their local speeds would give a red shift/blue shift and if we assume that we are average (that is there are some faster and some slower moving galaxies), then we should see a similar amount of red and blue shift in nearby galaxies). This is prety much the same as what is predicted by the BB theory and the observations are about the same.

 

However, the difference occurs when you look at longer distances. If the galaxies of the universe have a Net rotation, then we know that half the distant galaxies would be moving towards us (blue shifted), and the other half should be traveling at roughly the same speed (as we would be moving along with them) and be half blue shifted and half red shifted (however, many would have a red/blue shift so small that it would be undetectable as they would be moving nearly the same speed as us).

 

So, if we were living in a rotating universe, we should see more blue shifted galaxies as galaxies on the other side of the point we are rotating about would be coming towards us, and the galaxies on our side of the centre point would be moving at roughtly the same speed as us.

 

But, observations give an overwhelmingly Red shifted Universe. So, this disproves your theory completely and it fits exactly with the prediction of the Big Bang.

 

Even though you might not understand the Big Bang, observations disprove your thewory and provide support for the Big Bang theory.

[Klaynos]

Ignoring light.

 

The galaxies we observe are rotating at a certain rate, we cannot account for this with the observed matter in the galaxy, therefore we postulate that there is other matter there, dark matter.

 

I don't see how this relates to a big bang though?

 

cbr? do you mean the CMBR? If so, we've observed it to be pretty much isotropic...

[mooeypoo]

Moo, You asked for an explanation of my logic, fair enough. I look at the big bang and scatch my head. Everything poofed out of something called a singularity or whatever. Uh, nobody knows what that is, or where it came from, but we know what happened the first trillionth second, We are expanding like a balloon or top of a loaf of raisin bread (which doesn't hold water because it's all isotropic.) We are accelerating because of something called dark energy, and light is bending because of something called dark matter. Nobody knows what they are either. And according to the posts 24 is not larger than 13.7 and light stops at 13.7 billion ly. And you're questioning my logic?? My theory doesn't use raisin bread.

 

Okay, first off, my friend, the fact you don't understand a theory does not make it false, and the fact we have holes in a theory (that we know about) does not make it false either. What could make a theory false is if something is discovered that is *contradicting* the theory.

 

Nothing like that exists so far.

 

Above that, you are over simplifying yet again. Light does not bend because of dark matter, and the universe is not accelerating because of dark energy. The processes that "bend light" and cause the acceleration of the universe is quite MORE than just dark matter and dark energy.

 

Pointing out only what we don't know in a theory does not make the theory "full of flaws". On the contrary, it makes it fit *what we know right now*.

 

The "Big Bang" theory explains how the universe began *after* the first millionth of a second. Indeed it does. We don't know, understand, or are capable of imagining (pick one) *at the current level of scientific knowledge* what was the process before that millionth of a second.

 

That means that the theory may change. Yup. That's science.

 

However. The theory of the "Big Bang" is *so substantiated* (did you even read the resources I gave you?) it answers *so many questions* and allows relatively ACCURATE PREDICTIONS that it is decided to use it, with obvious caution, as any other theory (like that of gravity, say).

 

Newton's theory of Gravity too, may I remind you, was *changed* by Einstein. But Einstein did a few things to make that change:

 

1. He recognized a problem that the current theory could not answer or explain.

2. He suggested an alternative theory that answers the *problem* AND FITS ALL OTHER OBSERVATIONS.

 

 

If he were to just say "I know better" and put forth a theory with no backings, no proof, no observational data, just hypotheses, then we would still have Newton's gravity and nothing else, wondering forever what would happen to earth's orbit if the sun disappears.

 

Now. Lastly:

 

You have not explained your LOGIC.

 

You explained why the current theory doesn't satisfy you. That is an excellent reason to try and find alternative - it is how good science is done. A theory doesn't satisfy you, and you try to find a better one. Great.

 

But we cannot be expected to accept your theory just because the other one has unsatisfying parts for you. You need to make sure that your alternative theory is *logical* and that it explains the current situation *BETTER* than the current theories.

 

You have not done that.

 

My question about the logic in your theory wasn't answered. You explained your *motivation*, not the logic in your basic premise.

 

I showed you why things do NOT "spin". Therefore I completely crushed your theory.

 

Do something about it (like *explain better* ?) or just drop the theory.

 

 

I can tell you I don't like the big bang and suggest the universe was created out of the principle of toilet-flushing.

 

It's a nice concept, and nothing more, until I *prove it*. Or prove it's of VALUE (hence: explaining better, predicting correctly, etc).

 

 

Explain your logic please, stop avoiding the major problem in your explanations.

 

 

~moo

[jeff Mitchel]

Moo, You say you showed me why things don't spin and "crushed" my theory?? Allow me to contradict. Asteroid, satellites,moons, planets, stars, and yes even galaxies are spinning in orbit. You cling on to the bb without putting up a defense to my formula 12 plus 12 equals 24. If 12 plus 12 equals 24 then the cmbr measurements are wrong, and then the bb is wrong. If the bb is wrong, we need a more logical theory, and if you have one that is more logical than mine I would like to hear it.

 

Edtharan Your comment, that space moved faster than the speed of light carrying matter with it; would still mean that the matter was traveling faster than the speed of light

[Klaynos]

Moo, You say you showed me why things don't spin and "crushed" my theory?? Allow me to contradict. Asteroid, satellites,moons, planets, stars, and yes even galaxies are spinning in orbit. You cling on to the bb without putting up a defense to my formula 12 plus 12 equals 24. If 12 plus 12 equals 24 then the cmbr measurements are wrong, and then the bb is wrong. If the bb is wrong, we need a more logical theory, and if you have one that is more logical than mine I would like to hear it.

 

Edtharan Your comment, that space moved faster than the speed of light carrying matter with it; would still mean that the matter was traveling faster than the speed of light

 

There are lots and lots and lots of things that don't spin, we are just alot less likely to see them as we are orbiting.... it's also quite a stable energy situation to form....

 

Please stop acting like a troll.

 

12+12 != 24 when you are dealing with relativistic objects...

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=384698&postcount=51

 

Also there has not been enough time for the light to travel that far...

[mooeypoo]

Moo, You say you showed me why things don't spin and "crushed" my theory?? Allow me to contradict. Asteroid, satellites,moons, planets, stars, and yes even galaxies are spinning in orbit. You cling on to the bb without putting up a defense to my formula 12 plus 12 equals 24. If 12 plus 12 equals 24 then the cmbr measurements are wrong, and then the bb is wrong. If the bb is wrong, we need a more logical theory, and if you have one that is more logical than mine I would like to hear it.

 

Edtharan Your comment, that space moved faster than the speed of light carrying matter with it; would still mean that the matter was traveling faster than the speed of light

 

Again with that spinning. I asked very *specific* questions and gave *very* specific examples of why that is just *NOT* true. You ignore on purpose or did you just not read what I wrote to you?

 

Here it is again: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=383346&postcount=42

 

Should I quote the entire thing again..?

You haven't even read what I said in my post. How 'bout you start there, and this time answer to the point?

 

~moo

[jeff Mitchel]

mooeypoo

 

I respectfully agree to disagree. I notice you keep avoiding my point about 12 plus 12. That's okay, I offered it up to the people at wmap (CMBR gurus) and usually they give my questions prompt replies. Not this time- no answer. You can't have objects over 24 billion ly apart in a universe that is only 13.7 billion years old. That noise you here in the background is the big bang baloney falling down.

[Klaynos]

Are my posts invisible to everyone else or is Jeff just ignoring them?

 

Perhaps they're not replying to you because they don't see a point?

[Edtharan]

I notice you keep avoiding my point about 12 plus 12. That's okay, I offered it up to the people at wmap (CMBR gurus) and usually they give my questions prompt replies. Not this time- no answer. You can't have objects over 24 billion ly apart in a universe that is only 13.7 billion years old.

Ok, here it is in a really simple experiemnt that you can do at home:

 

1) Get 3 people.

2) Get person A to stand next to person B and Person C to stand on the other side of B (Like this: ABC).

3) Have person A and person C walk away form person B at the same speed (walking speed).

4) Have them walk for 13.7 seconds and then stop.

 

How far away is person C from person A?

 

If the "Universe" of the 3 people is only 13.7 seconds old, howcome Person C is 27.4 walking seconds way from person A?

 

Get it now.

 

You can have something that is further than 13.7 billion light years from another point in a universe that is only 13.7 billion years old.

[mooeypoo]

mooeypoo

 

I respectfully agree to disagree. I notice you keep avoiding my point about 12 plus 12. That's okay, I offered it up to the people at wmap (CMBR gurus) and usually they give my questions prompt replies. Not this time- no answer. You can't have objects over 24 billion ly apart in a universe that is only 13.7 billion years old. That noise you here in the background is the big bang baloney falling down.

 

I'm not the one ignoring stuff. I didn't make any statements other than what you're saying is illogical, along with proof to it.

 

What you are doing now is trolling, which is really getting the debate low into the 'seriously irrelevant' type. Soon, it will just be one of those 'amusing stupidities'.

 

Your entire basic premise is a sham. Instead of responding to the claim (you may actually convince us if you only try) you start avoiding the question and throwing more and more unrelated claims.

 

C'mon now.

 

~moo

[jeff Mitchel]

If there are galaxies that are at least 24b ly years apart(do we all agree?) then when they look through the new telescopes (supposed to see close to that distance) they will not be looking at the first galaxies as they all proclaim. Mooneypoo do we consider third grade math "seriosly irrevelant" and a "amusing stupidity"?

[Klaynos]

If there are galaxies that are at least 24b ly years apart(do we all agree?) then when they look through the new telescopes (supposed to see close to that distance) they will not be looking at the first galaxies as they all proclaim.

 

I don't quite understand this... you can't see any further than 13.7billion light years years, because the light has not had time to travel that far...

 

Mooneypoo do we consider third grade math "seriosly irrevelant" and a "amusing stupidity"?

 

It's application of this maths is, not the maths itself...

[insane_alien]

Mooneypoo do we consider third grade math "seriosly irrevelant" and a "amusing stupidity"?

 

when it is misapplied, yes.

[mooeypoo]

If there are galaxies that are at least 24b ly years apart(do we all agree?) then when they look through the new telescopes (supposed to see close to that distance) they will not be looking at the first galaxies as they all proclaim. Mooneypoo do we consider third grade math "seriosly irrevelant" and a "amusing stupidity"?

 

First off, spell my nickname correctly, it's rude otherwise, and I give you enough respect for you to return the favor.

 

Second, you still haven't answered my question. Why are you evasive? I asked a specific question, and you keep ignoring it, nitpicking specific words in my argument and relating them for a very specific point I didn't even get into.

 

Not everything spin.

Things that spin, do not spin the same way.

Orbitting is not spinning.

 

The logic of your "Basic Premise -> Hypothesis -> Conclusion" is *flawed*.

 

I didn't get into the insides of your theory yet, because I don't see a point to do that when the *tenets* of your entire theory are so shaky and illogical.

 

There is the possibility that you didn't explain yourself correctly, or, that I didn't understand you. I am open to that option, which is why I keep asking you to answer the problem of your basic premise.

 

 

Think of it this way: I have a hypothetical theory that since all stars are yellow, but we see galaxies as white, there is another form of matter that emits all colors but yellow, to balance it out.

 

The first, most evident problem with my hypothesis is the basic premise.

Not all stars are yellow.

The continuation (the .. 'conclusion') is irrelevant. When my basic premise that "All stars are yellow" is found to be wrong, the entire hypothesis and conclusion (that relied upon it) are completely irrelevant.

 

Getting into an argument about "what type of matter is it" is *silly*, in light of the *INCREDIBLE* logical flaw of the basic premise.

 

 

Until you answer the problem of your *basic premises*, I am not interested in getting into the guts of your theory.

 

 

And as long as you throw around unrelated claims to avoid the real question I'm asking, you're trolling, which is not only unscientific, it's also against forum policy.

 

~moo

[jeff Mitchel]

Mooeypoo I do apologize for the typo, and as for spinning; I don't remember saying everything spins the same, if I did I was in error. As for spinning not being the same as orbiting, I believe it is common usage to say that something is spinning around in orbit.

[mooeypoo]

Mooeypoo I do apologize for the typo, and as for spinning; I don't remember saying everything spins the same, if I did I was in error. As for spinning not being the same as orbiting, I believe it is common usage to say that something is spinning around in orbit.

 

It is commonly used to say that weight is calculated in KG. That doesn't make it scientifically true.

 

It may be 'common' to think orbit is spinning, but between what is common and what is scientifically logical for a scientific hypothesis there is a huge gap.

 

I still don't understand why you conclude the universe is spinning. Nothing even remotely suggests this, and your theory makes no sense, makes no viable predictions, and comes in the place of a *good* theory that *does* make predictions (that are observed), produce observations and is logical by both logic construction and what we observe.

 

So again.

 

Your basic premise is illogical, or incomplete. Please explain again.

 

 

~moo

[swansont]

Mooeypoo I do apologize for the typo, and as for spinning; I don't remember saying everything spins the same, if I did I was in error. As for spinning not being the same as orbiting, I believe it is common usage to say that something is spinning around in orbit.

 

We try to do a little better in science discussions, where the terminology is more precisely defined. As mooeypoo points out, we try not to confuse mass with weight. Also things like speed and velocity, heat and thermal energy, and rotation (spin) and revolution.

[swansont]

Bump so everyone can find this again, now that jeff Mitchel is back.

[shakes]

Why bother? The man is clearly insane. Obviously, if all galaxies were orbiting a central point then the red-shift and blue-shift of galaxies would bear this out, which they do not begin to. I'm not even a scientist and I can figure that one out. It would be beautiful and elegant if Galactic Spin was the case, but I would like to ride a pink unicorn in a coat of dragon mail over the rainbow to bathe in a pot of gold crucifixes too. Ain't gonna happen.

[Phi for All]

Why bother? The man is clearly insane.

The rest of your observations are quite rational, but you should learn not to lead with an ad hominem. Besides being a weak logical argument, it almost automatically removes any chance of your opponent taking you seriously. It also leads the discussion astray since jeff Mitchel may now feel obligated to spend time defending himself as well as his hypothesis.

 

Please aim your comments at the ideas, not those who propose them.

[benplace]

You are all wrong. The BB theory is based on the assumption that the Universe is expanding because stars are all moving away from each other and the assumption is wrong.

Stars are NOT accelerating away at a faster rate. It just appears that way because we assume that time is constant and flowing at the same speed. If you put in to the equations that time is slowing down and eventually will come to a complete stop, there is no need for "Dark energy" Stars appear to be moving away at at an accelerated state because time itself is slowing down.