jeff Mitchel Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Say you are on the Nortn Pole with a telescope and look straight up and see a galaxy "A" that's 12 billion light years away and somebody on the South Pole looks up and sees a galaxy "B" 12 billion light years away. An entity on galaxy "A" could look past earth to galaxy "B" and say that it is 24 billion light years away. This disproves wmap's version of the cbr theory which states the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. If the cbr is wrong, then the big bang, which uses the cbr as a pillar is wrong. Give the devil his due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Say you are on the Nortn Pole with a telescope and look straight up and see a galaxy "A" that's 12 billion light years away and somebody on the South Pole looks up and sees a galaxy "B" 12 billion light years away. An entity on galaxy "A" could look past earth to galaxy "B" and say that it is 24 billion light years away. This disproves wmap's version of the cbr theory which states the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. If the cbr is wrong, then the big bang, which uses the cbr as a pillar is wrong. Give the devil his due. I think "An entity on galaxy "A" could look past earth to galaxy "B" and say that it is 24 billion light years away." is where you go awry. An entity on A would not be able to see B, it would only see a bit past Earth — we would be near the edge of their visible universe. Similarly for B trying to see A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Say you are on the Nortn Pole with a telescope and look straight up and see a galaxy "A" that's 12 billion light years away and somebody on the South Pole looks up and sees a galaxy "B" 12 billion light years away. An entity on galaxy "A" could look past earth to galaxy "B" and say that it is 24 billion light years away. This disproves wmap's version of the cbr theory which states the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. If the cbr is wrong, then the big bang, which uses the cbr as a pillar is wrong. Give the devil his due. This argument fails. When we observe the CBR (often called CMB cosmic microwave background) we are looking at crud that its now at this moment at a distance of around 45 billion lightyears. the light from that crud has taken around 13.6 billion years to get here. Large scale distances expand, so you can think of the light as only having covered 13.6 billion lightyears "on its own hook" but the expansion of space has enormously amplified the distance it has covered "by its own efforts", so to speak. Do you have a problem with this, Jeff? It is standard cosmology. If you have trouble understanding, ask some questions. As a rule it is a good idea to try to undertand what you are criticizing before you attempt to find fault. =============== Here is a suggestion for anybody who hasn't done this yet. The CMB redshift is about z = 1070, or oftentimes people just say 1100. The original light was about like the like of a tungsten filament 100 watt bulb and it is stretched out to microwaves now, by about a factor of 1100. Try this: google Ned Wright and get to his cosmology calculator, and see what distance that corresponds to. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff Mitchel Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 To swansont, your argument about entity on A not seeing galaxy B only holds true if his telescope is like those on earth. If he had a better scope he could see B. Even if he couldn't see B, it is there and exists making the universe much larger than NASA's 13.7 billion light years. To Martin, you ask me if I have a problem with your "standard cosmology". Yeeesss. 12 plus 12 equals 24, and 24 is larger than 13.7. Standard math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 ...To Martin, you ask me if I have a problem with your "standard cosmology". Yeeesss. 12 plus 12 equals 24, and 24 is larger than 13.7. Standard math. You don't seem to have read my post. With telescopes and other gear we see stuff all the time that is more than 24 million LY away. This has been understood since the 1930s. Where have you been? I think you should try to EXPLAIN what your problem with this is. If you try to explain it step by step, it will force you to state your assumptions and we can see which of your assumptions are wrong. So please don't just wave your hands and say "standard math". Go thru the steps of what you think is your logic. ================= We see galaxies out to redshift z = 6, actually farther. To take something closer, we see thousands of galaxies at redshift z = 3 which corresponds to a presentday distance of 21 billion lightyears. You are saying this is impossible? You are saying that we really cant see these thousands of galaxies, because 21 is bigger than 13.7? If you are going to discuss professional cosmology you have to find out about it. You can't criticize if you don't know thing one. If you don't know anything about it then you are discussing your OWN PRIVATE worldview. You are not connecting with mainstream. If you want to discuss your own private ideas of cosmology, in which the things we observe cannot be more than 13.7 billion LY away, that is called "individual theories" or "speculation" or "pseudoscience". there is an appropriate forum for you to elaborate your theories in. If you want to connect with reality, a good place to begin would be the Scientific American article called "Misconceptions about the Big Bang" by Lineweaver and Davis. I will get a link for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Aren't we having the same conversation in 2 threads. And I'm pretty sure that the distance limit viewable has a fundamental dead point from which you cannot see any further back.... So even if you had the best telescope ever it would only be able to see under 14 billion... Although from work going on in the astro group in my uni I don't think the limit has quite been reached yet, or at least the resolution at the limit is not very good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 here`s one tho, if the Universe is expanding in All directions at the same time and has no center, how can it have a Border? {I`m in one of those moods } Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucaspa Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Say you are on the Nortn Pole with a telescope and look straight up and see a galaxy "A" that's 12 billion light years away and somebody on the South Pole looks up and sees a galaxy "B" 12 billion light years away. An entity on galaxy "A" could look past earth to galaxy "B" and say that it is 24 billion light years away. This disproves wmap's version of the cbr theory which states the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. If the cbr is wrong, then the big bang, which uses the cbr as a pillar is wrong. Give the devil his due. Jeff, Martin's answer is correct. Remember, the universe is expanding -- getting bigger. Your argument assumes that the universe is standing still. If we take your standing still universe, the person on galaxy A cannot see galaxy B! The reason is simple: the light from galaxy B hasn't had time to get to galaxy A yet! Remember, if the universe is 13..4 +/- 0.3 billion years old (the lastest measurement), then there hasn't been enough time for light to traverse 24 billion light years! However, because space itself is expanding, it is possible for objects to be more than 13.7 billion years away from earth at the time the light gets to us. That's because the object has been moving away from us during the light's trip from them to us. So, the light started out 12 billion years ago from 12 billion light years away -- then. However, because both the object and earth have been moving away from each other, they are now farther apart than 12 billion light years. Think of a quarterback throwing a football to a receiver on a straight out pattern. When the quaterback lets go of the ball, the receiver is only 30 yards away, but he is running away from the quaterback, isn't he? By the time the ball gets there, the receiver is 40 yards away from the quarterback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Aren't we having the same conversation in 2 threads.... I just checked Jeff's posts and saw that he has one in Speculation already http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30572 Hadn't seen that one before, something about "galaxy spin" severe case of somethingorother-ceramic, whatever it's called. maybe useless to suggest reading like the Lineweaver SciAm article on popular misconceptions In case anybody else wants, I put some basic cosmology links on the Astronomy Sticky http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=384716#post384716 these include a link to a Princeton website where a couple of faculty have copied the SciAm article for use by their students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 To swansont, your argument about entity on A not seeing galaxy B only holds true if his telescope is like those on earth. If he had a better scope he could see B. Even if he couldn't see B, it is there and exists making the universe much larger than NASA's 13.7 billion light years. To Martin, you ask me if I have a problem with your "standard cosmology". Yeeesss. 12 plus 12 equals 24, and 24 is larger than 13.7. Standard math. There's two issues/misconceptions at play here, I think. One is age vs size (i.e. why the visible universe radius isn't 13.7 bLY) and the other is do two spatially separated observers have the same visible universe. (I didn't address the former in my previous post, which was a mistake) The quality of the scope is not the issue. There are parts of the galaxy you simply can't see, because it is receding too quickly. The farthest part we can see is a bit over 13 billion years old (and as others point out, that's actually much further away due to the expansion). If you pick a point at some distance, they will have a visible universe as well, but it will encompass some different space. Each will have stars/galaxies that the other could not see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff Mitchel Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 Martin, where did you come up with 13.7 million?? Klaynos are you saying light stops at 13.7 billion miles, give or take? Lucaspa, no where Have I said we are standing still. I did say 13.7 billion light years is not how old the universe is. I know the galaxies are further away now than we see them which plays into my formula. THE UNIVERSE IS MUCH BIGGER THAN 24 BILLION LY. The universe is spinning which accounts for the galaxies red shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 13.7 billion years is the most accurate one I've heard so far. Do some research man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Martin, where did you come up with 13.7 million?? Klaynos are you saying light stops at 13.7 billion miles, give or take? Lucaspa, no where Have I said we are standing still. I did say 13.7 billion light years is not how old the universe is. I know the galaxies are further away now than we see them which plays into my formula. THE UNIVERSE IS MUCH BIGGER THAN 24 BILLION LY. The universe is spinning which accounts for the galaxies red shift. if it was spinning some would be blue some red. And no I'm not saying it stops, I'm saying that that's the greatest distance it's travelled, there is also a "dark" stage of expansion I believe where there was very little stuff emitting photons... Somewhere there's an image that explains this but I don't have time to find it at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff Mitchel Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 To Klaynos There are some blue shifted galaxies, but definitely in the minority. Why more don't show up as blue shift I don't know. To Thedarkshade It's only 13.7 if your a bb boy. It's a lot bigger than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 To Klaynos There are some blue shifted galaxies, but definitely in the minority. Why more don't show up as blue shift I don't know. I know, it's because the universe is expanding, because the BB did happen. So there's something that BB theory describes that you fail to, therefore in the spirit of science we scrap your theory and go with BB... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Off-topic: ..., there is also a "dark" stage of expansion I believe where there was very little stuff emitting photons... I think what you are refering to might be the de-coupling of matter and radiation and the time before that. I do not think that the statement "there was very little stuff emitting photons" is correct, at least I wouldn't know why this should be the case. Going backwards in time: With decreasing time, temperature of matter increases. At some point (stated as 3000 K in the two sources I looked into), most (or practically all, just pump up the temp a bit) of the matter will be in ionized form. These ions and electrons strongly interact with the radiation, which is referred to as the universe being opaque to radiation. This also means that whatever information about previous events was coded in the radiation, it would be spoiled by repeated interaction of the radiation with the matter. Going forwards in time from there: Around the mentioned T=3000 K (something like time = O(100000 y), I think) matter starts to form electrically neutral atoms, which then have less interaction with the radiation. If you take this to the extreme and claim that this less basically equals none at all, then the state of the radiation at this time (a thermal equilibrium with the matter, hence the thermal distribution of the cmb) would be pretty much conserved, except for some changes due to expansion. Bottom-line: The inability to see beyond a certain point in cosmo history is not due to the fact that little radiation was emitted back then, but actually because a lot of stuff interacted with the radiation, then. Disclaimer: Above is mostly based on vague memories, fetching a book from my shelf to read it up and verify some keywords on WP, so don't take it as an expert statement. EDIT: On 2nd thought, you might have simply referred to that no stars had formed, yet. That would then cover later stages of the universe. The cmb which I basically talked about is pre-stellar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Martin, where did you come up with 13.7 million??... The figure I quoted was 13.7 billion, not million. It is commonplace. You used it yourself in your first post. I responded to your earlier posts and made a number of points. You have not replied to any of them. I get the impression you are not interested in learning. ========== I agree with what Atheist says here about recombination and why, using light, we can't see back any further. the matter that emitted the CMB that we are now receiving is sometimes called the "last scattering surface" The temperature is widely accepted to be 3000 kelvin, as Atheist says. The last scatter surface is a big sphere with radius about 45.6 billion LY with us as center. this sphere is what we SEE when we detect and map the Cosmic Microwave Background with instruments like WMAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Atheist I honestly can't remember I was about 18 months ago I saw a couple of presentations where this was mentioned in passing, and the presentations where given by UG's so there's a very high chance my understanding is misguided... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff Mitchel Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 Martin, refer to post no. 5. You say 13.7 million. What I gather from your posts, is that you want me to defend my theory using cmbr. I believe the cmbr is a haze of microwaves that has been emitted by billions of galaxies over billions of years and has nothing to do with the beginning of anything. Why would I use that to defend my theory. No one has offered up a logical defense to my formula of the universe being over 24b ly old. The best you can come up with is you can't see over 14 b ly?? Even if galaxy A can't see galaxy B, it is still there and thus the universe has to be over 24b years old. Which disproves wmap and the cmbr being a measurement of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Martin, refer to post no. 5. You say 13.7 million. What I gather from your posts, is that you want me to defend my theory using cmbr. I believe the cmbr is a haze of microwaves that has been emitted by billions of galaxies over billions of years and has nothing to do with the beginning of anything. Why would I use that to defend my theory. You need to mathematically explain how this would happen, and how old the universe would have to be for this... And probably some stuff I'm missing which BB explains. As to the second part of your post you made the same statement in another thread. In reply to which I gave you a link to an explanation I gave several replies previously. It's all relative... Also the discussion I was having above, I was refering to "the dark ages" after cmbr but before stellar I believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Martin, refer to post no. 5. You say 13.7 million. It was a typo. Move along. What I gather from your posts, is that you want me to defend my theory using cmbr. I believe the cmbr is a haze of microwaves that has been emitted by billions of galaxies over billions of years and has nothing to do with the beginning of anything. Why would I use that to defend my theory. No one has offered up a logical defense to my formula of the universe being over 24b ly old. The best you can come up with is you can't see over 14 b ly?? Even if galaxy A can't see galaxy B, it is still there and thus the universe has to be over 24b years old. Which disproves wmap and the cmbr being a measurement of anything. If the universe is expanding, why would something that is 13.7 by old would be limited to being 13.7 bLY away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff Mitchel Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 The age of the universe I don't know, but that's okay, I don't think mankind ever will. You guys keep throwing the cmbr at me like I'm supposed to defefnd it? It's a big cloud of microwave nothing that is a huge waste of time and money trying to decipher anything from. My original post on this thread I offered up to wmap (the cmbr honchos) and as of yet no reply. Usually they reply promptly, but I can see their dilemma. You can't have objects 24b ly away in a universe that is only 13.7 ly old. Unless of course we are the center, and I don't believe anybody believes that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I have nothing to say to that other than re-read all the replies you've been given and answer some questions properly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losfomot Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 No one has offered up a logical defense to my formula of the universe being over 24b ly old. The best you can come up with is you can't see over 14 b ly?? Even if galaxy A can't see galaxy B, it is still there and thus the universe has to be over 24b years old. Which disproves wmap and the cmbr being a measurement of anything. Nobody needs to offer up a defense to some misguided theory. As Martin mentions, you need to learn what current Cosmology really says before trying to come up with a different theory to debunk it. At this time, you do not understand what current cosmology is saying, so how can you say that it is wrong? Take the time to learn... ask questions... do not shove aside something that you don't understand and insist that your theory is right, and that we all have to disprove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edtharan Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 You can't have objects 24b ly away in a universe that is only 13.7 ly old. Ok, I'll explain it for you: The size of the Universe is not necessarily related to the age of the Universe. Get it. However, the size of the visible Universe is dependent on the age of the Universe. The size of the Visible Universe is dependant on how long the light has been traveling. As we can see 13.7 billion lightyears, then the time that the visible Universe (since it was transperent to electromagnetic radiation) must therefore be 13.7 billion years. The Universe could be older, but it would have had to be opaque to EM radiation, or we would be able to see out that far as well. If the Universe was Opaque to EM radiation 13.7 billion years ago, we have to ask ourselves "Why?" and look for evidence to support the answers we come up with (and more importantly look for evidence that might disprove our answer). According to all the evidence, the Universe was smaller 13.7 billion years ago and expanded (and still is). If we follow the rate of expansion shown by the evidence, and take it back to the 13.7 billion year (and a little beyond) we get to a point where everything was at a single point (singularity). So wew have a singularity and then it expanded. Sounds like the Big Bang to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now