Red Shift

[rigney]

Spectral Red Shift

 

 

Using red shift to extrapolate distances to other galaxies is probably the most accurate method on the books today. But not foolproof by any stretch. Looking along a particular line of radii we will see galaxies that have a red shift according to their distances from us. A galaxy left or right of that line by any margain will have a different wavelength unless it is exactly the same distance away from us as the one we were looking at.

 

 

Viewing such a small segment of the universe as we do, and trying to make sense of it is mind boggling at best. And since I don't believe in a bent, flat stretched, cubicle or boxed in universe, let me give you my reasons for saying so. For starters, to me; our universe is spherical,! round as a basketball and smooth as a pearl. Quote, unquote Well, maybe I really shouldn't have gone quite that far, but give me a break on the spherical thing anyway, ok?

 

 

So, we're rocketing out into space at some unknown speed because there are no mile markers, maps, sign posts or a speedometer to keep us informed, and wondering at the same time, where in the world are we are going? Well, let me tell you; I feel a lot safer without a map in this situation, than trying to read through a library full of information that leads me absolutely nowhere. As Carl Sagan once said, settle back and enjoy the ride. At least I think it was something like that.

 

 

First off, just how large is this universe? If we knew, it would probably blow our minds. But since we don't, what is there to be afraid of? I'd like to think of our universe as a big "spherical" bicycle wheel. You know, with the spokes, rim, tire and all, and an axle hub you had to keep greased so the bearings didn't wear out and freeze up. Well, keep that view in mind for a moment as a flat version of what I believe is a "spherical" universe. Now, take away the tire, rim and uncross the overlapping spokes so they point radially away from the hub to form a purely symmetrical unintersecting gradient in any direction. Let's then say that from tip to tip across the entire diameter of any two spokes and in either direction, the distance is 24inches. Now let's say that 24" represents a whole bunch of light years.

 

 

How many? Who knows? But for arguments sake let's say, A hundred billion light years, and again; from spoke end to spoke end. For instance, from the exact center; it is fifty billion light years in any direction. Somewhere, presumably in the middle of "one of these spokes" our galaxy is racing outward at some immeasurable speed. To what or to where you might query? And you would be right to ask such a question, since there is no end to these spokes, and simply put, because they are only imaginary lines anyway.

 

 

Before I get totally carried away from this fantasy world, let's assume that our galaxy is approximately twenty five billion light years from the center of this imaginary spherical wheel we call universe, out to where we are universe has extended to the present moment. According to astronomers we can only see visible light as it looking at perhaps 13 billion years ago, which means that the vast majority of our universe is still unaccounted for. Now imagine our Milky Way as the very center of a globular parallax in the middle of one of these spokes. Yes, we can see in any direction for thirteen billion + light years, but I believe it is only a small portion of the universe we see, as comparable to that which we cannot see.

Edited August 16, 2010 by rigney

[rigney]

Spectral Red Shift

 

Using red shift to extrapolate distances to other galaxies is probably the most accurate method on the books today. But not foolproof by any stretch. Looking along a particular line of radii we will see galaxies that have a red shift according to their distances from us. A galaxy left or right of that line by any margain will have a different wavelength unless it is exactly the same distance away from us as the one we were looking at.

 

Viewing such a small segment of the universe as we do, and trying to make sense of it is mind boggling at best. And since I don't believe in a bent, flat stretched, cubicle or boxed in universe, let me give you my reasons for saying so. For starters, to me; our universe is spherical,! round as a basketball and smooth as a pearl. Quote, unquote Well, maybe I really shouldn't have gone quite that far, but give me a break the spherical thing anyway, ok?

 

So, we're rocketing out into space at some unknown speed because there are no mile markers, maps, sign posts or a speedometer to keep us informed, and wondering at the same time, where in the world are we are going? Well, let me tell you; I feel a lot safer without a map in this situation, than trying to read through a library full of information that leads me absolutely nowhere. As Carl Sagan once said, settle back and enjoy the ride. At least I think it was something like that.

 

First off, just how large is this universe? If we knew, it would probably blow our minds. But since we don't, what is there to be afraid of? I'd like to think of our universe as a big "spherical" bicycle wheel. You know, with the spokes, rim, tire and all, and an axle hub you had to keep greased so the bearings didn't wear out and freeze up. Well, keep that view in mind for a moment as a flat version of what I believe is a "spherical" universe. Now, take away the tire, rim and uncross the overlapping spokes so they point radially away from the hub to form a purely symmetrical unintersecting gradient in any direction. Let's then say that from tip to tip across the entire diameter of any two spokes and in either direction, the distance is 24inches. Now let's say that 24" represents a whole bunch of light years.

 

How many? Who knows? But for arguments sake let's say, A hundred billion light years, and again; from spoke end to spoke end. For instance, from the exact center; it is fifty billion light years in any direction. Somewhere, presumably in the middle of "one of these spokes" our galaxy is racing outward at some immeasurable speed. To what or to where you might query? And you would be right to ask such a question, since there is no end to these spokes, and simply put, because they are only imaginary lines anyway.

 

Before I get totally away from this fantasy world, let's just say that our galaxy is approximately twenty five billion light years from the center of this imaginary spherical wheel and twenty five more out to where the outer perimeter of our universe has extended to at any given moment. According to astronomers we can only see visible light as it looked perhaps 13 billion years ago, which means that the vast majority of our universe is still unaccounted for. Now imagine our Milky Way as the very center of a globular parallax in the middle of one of these spokes. Yes, we can see in any direction for thirteen billion + light years, but I believe it is only a small portion of the universe that is viewable, comparable to that which we cannot see.

 

So, can red shift help us find other methods of determining where we are in this universe? And with no disrespect to his distinction, will Hubbles law remain the only practical one?

 

Or, will the: Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric, be an exact solution to Einstein's field equations of general relativity; which describes a simply connected, homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe? Depending on geographical or historical preferences, a subset of the four scientists — Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, Howard Percy Robertson and Arthur Geoffrey Walker — may be named (e.g., Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) or Robertson–Walker (RW) or Friedmann–Lemaître (FL)). This model is sometimes called the Standard Model of modern cosmology.[1]

 

But, when hearing of something simply describe as being connected in a homogenous and isotropic "Expanding or Contracting Universe", I "simply" start to panic!! Someone, Help!!

Edited June 29, 2010 by rigney

[AlphaSheeppig]

Remember that supposedly nothing could travel faster than the speed of light from the point in space where the big bang happened. This sets a size limit on the universe as a sphere with a radius of 13 or so billion light years. We should in theory be able to see at least some portion of the edge of the universe and the centre from where we are (or at least some past version of them). We are just limited by the sensitivity of our instruments, and we have reached the point where radiation from background noise is greater than the radiation from the objects we are trying to observe.

[Sisyphus]

Remember that supposedly nothing could travel faster than the speed of light from the point in space where the big bang happened. This sets a size limit on the universe as a sphere with a radius of 13 or so billion light years. We should in theory be able to see at least some portion of the edge of the universe and the centre from where we are (or at least some past version of them). We are just limited by the sensitivity of our instruments, and we have reached the point where radiation from background noise is greater than the radiation from the objects we are trying to observe.

 

This is not true. The universe does not have edges or a center, and it is certainly much larger than a sphere of radius 13 billion LY. In fact, it might be infinite.

 

Do not think of the big bang as an explosion at a single point, or the expansion of the universe as "outwards." The big bang happened everywhere. It is not a movement of things through space, but rather an expansion of space itself.

 

It is because of this that we can actually see light from objects much farther than 13 billion LY away. The light has taken 13 billion LY to reach us, but while it was traveling the space it was traveling through expanded, meaning that the current distance is much greater.

 

Our limit of observation is the cosmic microwave background radiation. This is not just an accumulation of noise, but a vision of the early universe, which was opaque. It is the farthest we can see because the light emitted from it is from the earliest time that it was possible for light to freely travel.

[rigney]

Since both answers are diametrically opposed and spoken so obligatory, I ain't gonna go there. But, personally I don't understand how an entire universe could just happen without some growth.

Edited June 29, 2010 by rigney

[Moontanman]

The universe as we see it happened when a 4d brane collided with another 4d brane in a multidimensional bulk space I like it

[Sisyphus]

But, personally I don't understand how an entire universe could just happened without some growth.

 

The universe is definitely expanding. Is that what you mean by growth? What do you mean by "just happened?"

[rigney]

The universe as we see it happened when a 4d brane collided with another 4d brane in a multidimensional bulk space I like it

 

Would you put that into context where an uneducated person like me can grasp it? I assure you, I haven't a clue?? Thanks

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The universe is definitely expanding. Is that what you mean by growth? What do you mean by "just happened?"

 

 

No, what I tried to say was, but maybe not too well, many people say the universe came into existance fully grown and just keeps on getting more spread out, not more of it. But then I read today where it could be either "shrinking or expanding". What's a feller to believe as truth?

Edited June 29, 2010 by rigney
Consecutive posts merged.

[cypress]

Remember that supposedly nothing could travel faster than the speed of light from the point in space where the big bang happened. This sets a size limit on the universe as a sphere with a radius of 13 or so billion light years. We should in theory be able to see at least some portion of the edge of the universe and the centre from where we are (or at least some past version of them). We are just limited by the sensitivity of our instruments, and we have reached the point where radiation from background noise is greater than the radiation from the objects we are trying to observe.

 

The expanding space/time model Sisyphus mentions is just one of several speculations. It happens to be one of the more popular models and includes assumptions that lead to the tentative conclusions that there is no center or edge to this universe. Other models do allow for a center and event horizon(s)/edge and are based on different assumptions. One key assumption of one alternative is that our observation point is near the center and therefore the universe appears to be expanding (generally) uniformly in every direction. It is not known which model, if any is correct.

[Sisyphus]

The expanding space/time model Sisyphus mentions is just one of several speculations. It happens to be one of the more popular models and includes assumptions that lead to the tentative conclusions that there is no center or edge to this universe. Other models do allow for a center and event horizon(s)/edge and are based on different assumptions. One key assumption of one alternative is that our observation point is near the center and therefore the universe appears to be expanding (generally) uniformly in every direction. It is not known which model, if any is correct.

 

That is not consistent with observations recently discussed in other threads. Please don't bring that into this thread.

 

Incidentally, a cosmic event horizon is not the same thing as an "edge."

[Moontanman]

Would you put that into context where an uneducated person like me can grasp it? I assure you, I haven't a clue?? Thanks

 

i like it because i can wrap my head around the concept of multidimensional but I have trouble describing what i see when i do. It's basically the universe as we see it is a 3d or 4d membrane floating in a 5 or more dimensional bulk space, 11 dimensions feels right in my mind when I think about it hard but 5 might be enough.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

 

http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb2004/sw_jan-feb2004_page1.htm

 

Colliding brane cosmology provides the second big hitter. The inflationary hot Big Bang has enjoyed enormous popularity, but is now challenged by a model universe with no Big Bang at all! This ekpyrotic cosmology posits that our universe is the result of a collision between two higher-dimension branes. The name derives the ancient Greek stoic philosopher’s notion that the universe was cyclically destroyed and re-created by fire. Instead of a big bang, the universe started in a Big Clap, a fiery crash of two branes, and the theory provides an interesting alternative to inflation, which is why it is hot.

 

From the stand point of a higher dimension our 3 or 4 d infinite universe is indeed finite and two such 3 or 4 d branes colliding would appear from our point of view to be a big bang but it actually occurs everywhere in space at once. No singularity, space only appears to be infinite and expanding from our perspective. From outside our brane in bulk space we are just a tiny part of the bigger picture. There could be an infinite number of such colliding branes or even things we can only guess at sharing our bulk space.

 

Occam's razor would say the big bang is simpler.

[cypress]

Hmm, It seemed quite relevant given Alpha's comments. Incidentally I do not see the inconsistencies you refer to. Ones view is often informed by ones presumptions, perhaps this explains the difference.

[rigney]

Somehow this thread has slipped away from the infra red tracking of our universe. But what is more troubling is the different models for our universe, and the way we need to keep buying newer books to stay abreast of the changes. Thank goodness for Google. If not, I'd probably be broke by now. Seriously, many theories are like putting a dough ball on a hook, tossing it into the water to see what bites? Words like branes, strings, ekpyrotics and many other new ones, seemingly very chic at the moment, make me feel rather passe. But where is the valadity for offering many of these theories, other than some fast moving figures that most folks can't even relate to? Plus I've heard this old adage many a time: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, Baffle them with B---S---.

 

What I'm trying to say is, if we can't get a rope on this critter we call universe, why go hunting for something we have no idea of, or that even exists? I love the fact that we live as part of this fascinating program. And even more caught up in the notion that many intellectuals aren't sure of their answers either. Like, which way is up? Someone, anyone out there; bring a new reasoning into this forum, or better yet this post that can be built upon. There are many hidden answers you are afraid to offer because of ridicule. Just don't sit on them. "We all may learn something", especially, yours truely! C'mon back......

Edited August 16, 2010 by rigney

[rigney]

This is not true. The universe does not have edges or a center, and it is certainly much larger than a sphere of radius 13 billion LY. In fact, it might be infinite.

 

Do not think of the big bang as an explosion at a single point, or the expansion of the universe as "outwards." The big bang happened everywhere. It is not a movement of things through space, but rather an expansion of space itself.

 

It is because of this that we can actually see light from objects much farther than 13 billion LY away. The light has taken 13 billion LY to reach us, but while it was traveling the space it was traveling through expanded, meaning that the current distance is much greater.

 

Our limit of observation is the cosmic microwave background radiation. This is not just an accumulation of noise, but a vision of the early universe, which was opaque. It is the farthest we can see because the light emitted from it is from the earliest time that it was possible for light to freely travel.

 

These things are strictly speculative of course, so why not consider the BB the genesis of an absolutely new beginning? What make you think that quoting a hypothis as fact, without "absolute" knowledge, gives it total credence? There are many scientists and astronomers who scratch their heads each night, wondering; have I sent the right message? If you can look out at that universe and have no doubts, then you're an idiot plain and simple! I want to learn, you want to learn; so let's do it together, not as adversaries.

 

Spectral Red Shift

 

 

Using red shift to extrapolate distances to other galaxies is probably the most accurate method on the books today. But not foolproof by any stretch. Looking along a particular line of radii we will see galaxies that have a red shift according to their distances from us. A galaxy left or right of that line by any margain will have a different wavelength unless it is exactly the same distance away from us as the one we were looking at.

 

 

Viewing such a small segment of the universe as we do, and trying to make sense of it is mind boggling at best. And since I don't believe in a bent, flat stretched, cubicle or boxed in universe, let me give you my reasons for saying so. For starters, to me; our universe is spherical,! round as a basketball and smooth as a pearl. Quote, unquote Well, maybe I really shouldn't have gone quite that far, but give me a break on the spherical thing anyway, ok?

 

 

So, we're rocketing out into space at some unknown speed because there are no mile markers, maps, sign posts or a speedometer to keep us informed, and wondering at the same time, where in the world are we are going? Well, let me tell you; I feel a lot safer without a map in this situation, than trying to read through a library full of information that leads me absolutely nowhere. As Carl Sagan once said, settle back and enjoy the ride. At least I think it was something like that.

 

 

First off, just how large is this universe? If we knew, it would probably blow our minds. But since we don't, what is there to be afraid of? I'd like to think of our universe as a big "spherical" bicycle wheel. You know, with the spokes, rim, tire and all, and an axle hub you had to keep greased so the bearings didn't wear out and freeze up. Well, keep that view in mind for a moment as a flat version of what I believe is a "spherical" universe. Now, take away the tire, rim and uncross the overlapping spokes so they point radially away from the hub to form a purely symmetrical unintersecting gradient in any direction. Let's then say that from tip to tip across the entire diameter of any two spokes and in either direction, the distance is 24inches. Now let's say that 24" represents a whole bunch of light years.

 

 

How many? Who knows? But for arguments sake let's say, A hundred billion light years, and again; from spoke end to spoke end. For instance, from the exact center; it is fifty billion light years in any direction. Somewhere, presumably in the middle of "one of these spokes" our galaxy is racing outward at some immeasurable speed. To what or to where you might query? And you would be right to ask such a question, since there is no end to these spokes, and simply put, because they are only imaginary lines anyway.

 

 

Before I get totally carried away from this fantasy world, let's assume that our galaxy is approximately twenty five billion light years from the center of this imaginary spherical wheel we call universe, out to where we are extended to the present moment. According to astronomers we can only see visible light as it looking 13 billion years ago, which means that the vast majority of our universe is still unaccounted for. Now imagine our Milky Way as the very center of a globular parallax in the middle of one of these spokes. Yes, we can see in any direction for thirteen billion + light years, but it is only a small portion of the universe, as comparable to that which we cannot see.

Edited August 16, 2010 by rigney

[Sisyphus]

These things are strictly speculative of course, so why not consider the BB the genesis of an absolutely new beginning? What make you think that quoting a hypothis as fact, without "absolute" knowledge, gives it total credence? There are many scientists and astronomers who scratch their heads each night, wondering; have I sent the right message? If you can look out at that universe and have no doubts, then you're an idiot plain and simple! I want to learn, you want to learn; so let's do it together, not as adversaries.

 

When I state things as fact, what I mean is that the only viable models of how the universe works that we currently have predict those things. Of course there's no absolute knowledge. Our knowledge is very much incomplete, and subject to change. I've got more than just doubt - I'm sure we don't have it quite right yet.

 

However, it's the best we've got, and it is more than just idle speculation - it makes accurate predictions, over and over. And nobody has come up with anything else that does. Hence, it's what we work with.

 

And I don't want to be your adversary, either.

[rigney]

When I state things as fact, what I mean is that the only viable models of how the universe works that we currently have predict those things. Of course there's no absolute knowledge. Our knowledge is very much incomplete, and subject to change. I've got more than just doubt - I'm sure we don't have it quite right yet.

 

However, it's the best we've got, and it is more than just idle speculation - it makes accurate predictions, over and over. And nobody has come up with anything else that does. Hence, it's what we work with.

 

And I don't want to be your adversary, either.

 

Ditto! You are probably more intelligent than I could imagine myself being at any point in my life. Adversarial? That's a thing that stops the world from spinning. No, not philosophical platitude(s) but answers, are what this planet needs. I've looked around for several weeks now on this forum to realize that there are a bunch of you ready to carry the ball. But be patient. Idiots like me can stir the brew, but it takes distillers to get the job done.