Big Bang a Bust

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa, no where Have I said we are standing still.

 

Your argument assumes it. For your argument to be correct, then the universe has to be standing still. Otherwise, the quarterback analogy holds.

 

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.

 

Of course. If the universe is expanding in all directions over a period of time t, the size is going to be at least 2t. Again, blow up a balloon. Measure the distance across the balloon before you start and make 2 marks on opposite sides of the balloon. Then measure the time it takes and figure the velocity of expansion. The diameter of the balloon will be the velocity of expansion x t. However, the distance between your 2 marks will be greater than the expansion -- because you are going around the circumference of the balloon.

 

The universe is spinning which accounts for the galaxies red shift.

 

That one got disproven a long time ago, altho it is still repeated in creationist literature. But then, all kinds of falsehoods are repeated in creationist literature. A spinning universe won't give a redshift.

[mooeypoo]

btw... opening 2 threads on the same subject creating more and more diversion-like claims...

 

 

Trolling, much?

[swansont]

You can't have objects 24b ly away in a universe that is only 13.7 ly old.

 

I'll ask this again: why not?

[Edtharan]

A spinning universe won't give a redshift.

Yes, it should give us a majority of Blue Shifts as at least half the Universe will be comeing towards us (on the other side of the central point) and the galaxies near us should be roughly equal blue and red shifted.

[YT2095]

but I can see their dilemma. You can't have objects 24b ly away in a universe that is only 13.7 ly old.

 

I can see One problem with it, how about the idea of having ANYTHING LYs old?

since a LY is a measurement of Distance, not Time!

 

I`ll explain more later as I`m a bit pushed for centimeters at the moment, it`s already 6 foot past the mile o`clock!

[timo]

I can see One problem with it, how about the idea of having ANYTHING LYs old?

since a LY is a measurement of Distance, not Time!

 

I`ll explain more later as I`m a bit pushed for centimeters at the moment, it`s already 6 foot past the mile o`clock!

... and I refrained from commenting on "if the universe is expanding in all directions over a period of time t, the size is going to be at least 2t".

[jeff Mitchel]

I see that basic math as been moved to pseudoscience and speculation. Interesting. I would like to appologize for saying the universe is believed to be13.7b ly old, instead of 13.7b years old. I'm used to putting ly behind numbers I guess. Hey guys it's not me but your "scientific" community that is saying (almost in every periodical you read) that the new scopes coming on line are going to show the very first galaxies at 13.7 ly's. If there are galaxies that are 24 billion light years apart this can't be right.

[swansont]

I see that basic math as been moved to pseudoscience and speculation.

 

It's not a basic math problem. Treating it as such is, along with other unsubstantiated assertions, why it's speculation.

 

I will ask a third time why you think that the age and size muct be linearly related (i.e. 13.7 b years must mean 13.7 b LY)

 

 

(and remind you fo rule #8: "Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them." IOW, you need to answer questions put to you)

[Bignose]

...that the new scopes coming on line are going to show the very first galaxies at 13.7 ly's. If there are galaxies that are 24 billion light years apart this can't be right.

 

At some point here, jeff, the only way you won't be able to understand these simple discussions is if you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

Here is, yet again, another example.

 

Let's consider two snails. Snails move slowly, so we can deal with small distances. Let's further say that a snail can move 13.7 m per hour, and let's call 13.7m a "snail-hour" because that is the distance that a snail moves in one hour.

 

Now, start two snails at the same starting point, but start them in straight opposite directions. Since for a long time now, races start with a pistol going off, let's call the beginning of the race "The Loud Bang". Both snails move at their top speed the entire hour, and on the same straight line they started on. So, after one hour, both snails are 13.7m from the starting line -- one snail-hour's distance. They are 27.4 m apart from each other however. They are 2 snail-hours apart from one another even though is has only been one hour since "The Loud Bang".

 

Now... that is some 3rd grade math.

 

Now, if you really are still going to be intentionally obtuse about understanding this, replace "snail" with "galaxy", replace "hour" with "year", replace "snail-hour" with "light-year", replace "Loud Bang" with "Big Bang", and my little story there shows how two galaxies that are 13.7 billion years old can be as much as 27.4 billion light years apart by now -- not to mention a mere 24 billion light years.

 

Does this clear that up? Do I need to explain it better? Do you need more examples? If this is unclear, please explain how.

 

My hope is that this completely 100% fixes that issue, so you can get back to actually defending your idea instead of trying to locate holes where there aren't any.

[swansont]

At some point here, jeff, the only way you won't be able to understand these simple discussions is if you are being intentionally obtuse.

 

Here is, yet again, another example.

 

Let's consider two snails. Snails move slowly, so we can deal with small distances. Let's further say that a snail can move 13.7 m per hour, and let's call 13.7m a "snail-hour" because that is the distance that a snail moves in one hour.

 

Now, start two snails at the same starting point, but start them in straight opposite directions. Since for a long time now, races start with a pistol going off, let's call the beginning of the race "The Loud Bang". Both snails move at their top speed the entire hour, and on the same straight line they started on. So, after one hour, both snails are 13.7m from the starting line -- one snail-hour's distance. They are 27.4 m apart from each other however. They are 2 snail-hours apart from one another even though is has only been one hour since "The Loud Bang".

 

Now... that is some 3rd grade math.

 

Now, if you really are still going to be intentionally obtuse about understanding this, replace "snail" with "galaxy", replace "hour" with "year", replace "snail-hour" with "light-year", replace "Loud Bang" with "Big Bang", and my little story there shows how two galaxies that are 13.7 billion years old can be as much as 27.4 billion light years apart by now -- not to mention a mere 24 billion light years.

 

Does this clear that up? Do I need to explain it better? Do you need more examples? If this is unclear, please explain how.

 

My hope is that this completely 100% fixes that issue, so you can get back to actually defending your idea instead of trying to locate holes where there aren't any.

 

That's all well and good, but you have galaxies that are more than 27.4 b LY apart, and that's absolutely not a problem. What I want jeff Mitchel to explain is why he thinks that it is a problem.

[Bignose]

swansont, I was just trying to deal with his own personal numbers. I too would like him to explain why he thinks it is a problem.

[jeff Mitchel]

Swansnot, I apologize for saying the universe is supposedly 13.7 b ly's old. It is supposedly 13.7 b years old.

Again I agree with the snail analogy if galaxies are going close to the speed of light. Again another point to ponder is we see the snails as they were 12 billion years ago. They have had another 12 billion years to keep on trucking. We agree the universe is much larger than 13.7b ly's. Why are all those periodicals saying we are going to see the first galaxies when the new scopes come on line????

[Klaynos]

Because you can only see light that has had time to travel, and the max that can be is the age of the universe, about 13.7b years!

 

 

 

*scream*

[swansont]

And better telescopes will have better resolution and/or more light gathering power and/or will see in a different part of the spectrum, allowing you to see things you couldn't before. Which will better allow one to see galaxies near the edge of the visible universe, which are from the earliest times.

[jeff Mitchel]

Is 13.7 b ly years the edge of the universe or not? Obviouly it it not.

[swansont]

Is 13.7 b ly years the edge of the universe or not? Obviouly it it not.

 

Why should it be? (fourth call)

[lucaspa]

Is 13.7 b ly years the edge of the universe or not? Obviouly it it not.

 

No, it's not. Technically, there is no "edge"

 

"when some familiar object expands, such as a sprained ankle or the Roman Empire or a bomb, it gets bigger by expanding into the space around it. Ankles, empires and bombs have centers and edges. Outside the edges, there is room to expand into. The universe does not seem to have an

edge or a center or an outside, so how can it expand? A good analogy is to imagine that you are an ant living on the surface of an infl ating balloon. Your world is two-dimensional; the only directions you know are left, right, forward

and backward. You have no idea what “up” and “down” mean. One day you realize that your walk to milk your aphids is taking longer than it used to: fi ve minutes one day, six minutes the next day, seven minutes the next. The time it takes to walk to other familiar places is also increasing. You are sure

that you are not walking more slowly and that the aphids are milling around randomly in groups, not systematically crawling away from you.

 

This is the important point: the distances to the aphids are

increasing even though the aphids are not walking away. They

are just standing there, at rest with respect to the rubber of

the balloon, yet the distances to them and between them are

increasing. Noticing these facts, you conclude that the ground

beneath your feet is expanding. That is very strange because

you have walked around your world and found no edge or “outside” for it to expand into.

 

The expansion of our universe is much like the inflation of a balloon. The distances to remote galaxies are increasing. Astronomers casually say that distant galaxies are “receding” or “moving away” from us, but the galaxies are not traveling through space away from us. They are not fragments of a big bang bomb. Instead the space between the galaxies and us is expanding. Individual galaxies move around at random within clusters, but the clusters of galaxies are essentially at rest. The term “at rest” can be defined rigorously. The microwave background radiation fills the universe and defi nes a universal

reference frame, analogous to the rubber of the balloon, with respect to which motion can be measured.

 

This balloon analogy should not be stretched too far. From our point of view outside the balloon, the expansion of the curved two-dimensional rubber is possible only because it is embedded in three-dimensional space. Within the third dimension, the balloon has a center, and its surface expands into the surrounding air as it infl ates. One might conclude that the expansion of our three-dimensional space requires the presence of a fourth dimension. But in Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the foundation of modern cosmology,

space is dynamic. It can expand, shrink and curve without being embedded in a higher-dimensional space.

 

In this sense, the universe is self-contained. It needs neither a center to expand away from nor empty space on the outside (wherever that is) to expand into. When it expands, it does not claim previously unoccupied space from its surroundings. Some newer theories such as string theory do postulate extra dimensions, but as our three-dimensional universe expands, it does not need these extra dimensions to spread into."

 

Misconceptions About the Big Bang. Scientific American, March 2005

 

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.

 

Yes, you can have objects that are further away. Think of my football pass analogy. Because the receiver is moving away from the quarterback, when the ball gets there the receiver is further away than when the ball left the quarterback's hands.

 

You are doing the "simple calculation" that is in error:

 

"WRONG: The universe is 14 billion years old, so the radius of the observable part is 14 billion light-years.

RIGHT: Because space is expanding, the observable part of our universe

has a radius of more than 14 billion light-years."

HOW LARGE IS THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE?

As a photon travels, the space it traverses expands. By the time it reaches

us, the total distance to the originating galaxy is larger than a simple calculation based on the travel time might imply— about three times as large."

 

The Scientific American article quoted above.

[mooeypoo]

wow. That was one of the best explanations for the Big Bang theory I've seen.

 

Thanks for the quote, lucaspa!

 

Any chance you found this online? I couldn't, but I'm not sure I looked correctly... ?

[iNow]

Try here:

 

Misconceptions About the Big Bang - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, March 2005

 

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147

 

Baffled by the expansion of the universe? You're not alone. Even astronomers frequently get it wrong.

By Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis

[mooeypoo]

Rawwwkin.

 

Thanks

[jeff Mitchel]

Dark matter exist between the earlobes of people who believe in the Big Bang. Because without dark matter and dark energy you can't have your Big Bang. And that would be sacrilegious. Much easier believing in matter you can't detect (wimps and/or machos; give me a break) and energy coming out of nowhere making the galaxies go faster. All in the name of science??? I need to start snortin' some of that bb dust. It's a better drug then the ones I've been taking.

[ydoaPs]

Dark matter exist between the earlobes of people who believe in the Big Bang. Because without dark matter and dark energy you can't have your Big Bang. And that would be sacrilegious. Much easier believing in matter you can't detect (wimps and/or machos; give me a break) and energy coming out of nowhere making the galaxies go faster. All in the name of science??? I need to start snortin' some of that bb dust. It's a better drug then the ones I've been taking.

 

So, what would you propose as an alternative?

[jeff Mitchel]

That the galaxies themselves are orbiting around causing the light shift we detect. I try to show it on YouTube under Big Bang A Bust.

[mooeypoo]

That the galaxies themselves are orbiting around causing the light shift we detect. I try to show it on YouTube under Big Bang A Bust.

 

And yet as we pointed out, there's no observational data to support your hypothesis, while there are tons and tons of facts and observational data to support both the "big bang" theory and the existence of Dark Matter.

 

Did you even bother to read the article iNow posted? It may clear things up for you, and allow us to continue this debate in a much more *scientific* level rather than you just denying it all out of hand.

 

~moo

[lucaspa]

wow. That was one of the best explanations for the Big Bang theory I've seen.

 

Thanks for the quote, lucaspa!

 

Any chance you found this online? I couldn't, but I'm not sure I looked correctly... ?

 

I'm glad iNow gave you the website. If you can't get the full article, e-mail me and I'll send you the PDF.

 

Dark matter exist between the earlobes of people who believe in the Big Bang. Because without dark matter and dark energy you can't have your Big Bang.

 

Untrue. Big Bang was proposed and supported by data long before dark matter and dark energy were found.

 

Dark matter was proposed because the motion of stars within galaxies can only be explained by masses of invisible matter lying outside the orbits of the stars (peripheries of the galaxies).

 

It was originally thought that the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion (dark energy) would refute the Big Bang! However, it has now een shown that this is not the case:

12. MA Buchner and DN Spergel. Scientific American, 280: 62-71, Jan. 1999. Discusses changes in inflationary theory to account for new observations.

4. J Glanz, Microwave hump reveals flat universe. Science 283: 21, Jan 1, 1999. Data on microwave background radiation indicates that universe is flat. Means there must be the cosmological constant. And inflation theory survives.

 

And no, galaxies are not orbiting anything. The motion of various galaxies is not what we would see if they were orbiting anything. As mooeypoo noted, discussion with you will go better if you read a bit of the science and the history. If you had, you would not have made the glaring error that dark matter and dark energy are required for BB.

Edited June 7, 2008 by lucaspa
multiple post merged