Trying to find the past.

[Dave49]

I have heard that scientists looks out to about 4 billion light years from our position, and claim to see what the universe looked like near the beginning of the universe. But what if there are beings out there looking back at us and assuming that the Milky Way galaxy is 4 billion light years from their position, so we are what it looked like close to the big bang?

[insane_alien]

yep, that could be possible. however the beings looking back at us would see the milky way as it was 4 billion years ago.

 

we tend to look further than 4 billion light years to observe the really early universe though. the cmbr is about 13 billion light years away.

[michel123456]

I have heard that scientists looks out to about 4 billion light years from our position, and claim to see what the universe looked like near the beginning of the universe. But what if there are beings out there looking back at us and assuming that the Milky Way galaxy is 4 billion light years from their position, so we are what it looked like close to the big bang?

 

If TODAY there are beings out there 4 billions light years away , that are looking in the direction of the Milky Way, they are looking today at the Milky Way as it was approx. 4 billions years ago: it is in the past, we are not there, the planet Earth does not exist yet.

 

If you mean that somebody from 4 billions light years away is looking at us as we are TODAY, it means that this somebody lies in our future, you cannot see him.

 

In any way, we cannot communicate with somebody that is today on a planet 4 billions light years from us.

[Dave49]

Consider that the big bang probably expanded rapidly in all directions. A rapidly expanding bubble. If we think of it as spheres of "stuff" going out in all directions, then the "stuff" emanating from the explosion would be the exact same age all around the outside of the bubble. So is it not possible that we are looking right past the big bang event to the other edge of the bubble, which is the exact same age as us?

[michel123456]

Something like this?

 

trying to go into your mind:

We are at point C.

The BigBang happened at point B

All events on the circle have the same age.

Maybe we are looking at event A that has the same age with us.

 

No.

 

First of all, the Big Bang, following the Theory, did not happened in a particular place. There is no specific central point B.

 

Secondly, all we see around us lies in the past. That is because the Speed Of Light has a particular finite value: when an event is far away, light must have spend some time before reaching us. The "time that was spend" is another way of saying that the far away events are in the past. Even if there were a point B from which the universe originated, our visibility would end there. In fact we would observe concentric circles of events from the past, the most ancient events being in the little central circle at point B.

[Dave49]

So you are saying that there was no singularity which exploded to create the Big Bang? I thought that was the accepted theory? I don't understand.

[michel123456]

Don't figure anyone understands profoundly the existing Theory.

The BB Theory states that the "singularity" happened "everywhere". IIRC even the term "singularity" is under reconsideration.

I am not an advocate of the Big Bang, ask someone else, there are plenty of experts on the subject here.

 

What I can advocate is that on my own sketch above, point C cannot observe point A. That was solely intended to answer your question. I apologize if I made things more unclear than they were.

Edited March 7, 2011 by michel123456

[Spyman]

So you are saying that there was no singularity which exploded to create the Big Bang? I thought that was the accepted theory? I don't understand.

There is no singularity, no explosion and no creation included in the Big Bang theory.

 

The Big Bang theory

Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated - certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch.

 

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

 

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.

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

 

A tale of two big bangs

Whenever you hear or read about cosmology, there is one distinction you should have in the back of your mind - otherwise, matters might get a bit confusing: The term "big bang" has two slightly different meanings, and the answer to questions like "Did the big bang really happen" depends crucially on which of the two big bangs you are talking about.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/big_bangs

 

Misconceptions about the Big Bang

■ The expansion of the universe is one of the most fundamental concepts of modern science yet one of the most widely misunderstood.

■ The key to avoiding the misunderstandings is not to take the term "big bang" too literally. The big bang was not a bomb that went off in the center of the universe and hurled matter outward into a preexisting void. Rather it was an explosion of space itself that happened everywhere, similar to the way the expansion of the surface of a balloon happens everywhere on the surface.

■ This difference between the expansion of space and the expansion in space may seem subtle but has important consequences for the size of the universe, the rate at which galaxies move apart, the type of observations astronomers can make, and the nature of the accelerating expansion that the universe now seems to be undergoing.

■ Strictly speaking, the big bang model has very little to say about the big bang itself. It describes what happened afterward.

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

[Dave49]

Alexei Vladimir Filippenko from Berkley has said recently that the Big Bang might have been the result of a universe size black hole in another universe, whose gravity well was so strong, that it spewed "stuff" into this universe through a White Hole. In which case the graphic here: http://www.einstein-...ights/big_bangs would be the correct one, I think.

 

From my point of view some things have occurred to me.

 

First, I'm old enough to remember this topic from my youth. And there were people who, from Earth-bound observations, made predictions of what the planets and moons were like. Canals on Mars. Tropical forests on Venus. And on, and on. But when the time came that we were able to send probes out to the planets and their moons, these same people were astounded to find things not as they predicted from their observations on earth. And for every probe, came the same amazement. And this was just in our own solar neighborhood. And now were are doing the same thing with, basically, Earth-bound observations of billions of light years away from here. So I find it astounding that anyone can make definitive statements of what can and can't be. i.e. "point C cannot observe point A". Cosmic Physics is still in the Neanderthal stage, and we are not likely to ever go out 14 billion light years to find out what is actually true or false. For myself, it creates enough reality problems just with me "being". From what I can determine, the religious Creation theory is no more fantastic than any "Scientific" theory of existence. Perhaps the only thing that is "real" is Divine Thought. (For the lack of a better name.)

 

But you have given me a lot to consider. Thank you spyman, and michel123456.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Dave49

[michel123456]

You're welcome.

Besides, I don't consider myself as a reliable source, so you may be right and I may be wrong. Keep asking.

[divinum1]

I have heard that scientists looks out to about 4 billion light years from our position, and claim to see what the universe looked like near the beginning of the universe. But what if there are beings out there looking back at us and assuming that the Milky Way galaxy is 4 billion light years from their position, so we are what it looked like close to the big bang?

 

Hi dave49! I probably have given you some insight, as how the universe was initiated, which annuls the Big bang. Therefore, whoever is looking back in time, is looking in wrong direction, because there never was a Big bang. Because in the very beginning it was the energy (tiny units of it) who were first introduced upon the face of the deep. And then these tiny units of energy established a cooperation with one another, on one to one basis, and they thus transformed into the first complete particles of matter, which should be called gravitons since the conditions that they create we call it gravitation. And then these gravitons under their own power slowly transformed into into other particles of matter. First into electrons, and then electrons themselves transformed into diatrons (which is a units of two electrons) which became neutral-without a charge. And then these diatrons under the force of gravity are forced into the third particle of matter which is neutron, and the neutrons are forced into a reversable action, whereby they transform into protons. And the neutrons and protons form a cooperation with one another, and thus nuclei become formed, and then atoms, molecules, and ultimately matter-mass starts to form. And as the mass keeps multiplying it slowly accumulates up to its maximum which is; 3.53x10>40 kg. which becomes one huge star, which may be called 'proto star' since it existed only once in its life time. And at that point in time? this proto star falls apart, and the reason is, because gravitation as a whole is composed of two forces, orbital and centripetal force.

But orbital force at that particular time is approx. 86000 times stronger than centripetal force.

And it is the orbital force that forces the mass into a rotational spin from its beginning, whereas the centripetal forces is the one that holds the mass together. But it ultimately comes a point in time and space when the orbital force (its rotational kinetic energy that is) surpasses the strength of the centripetal force, and that is the point in time when the proto star begins to brake apart. And as the mass disintegrates into a multitude of smaller pieces, all of which distance themselves in accordance of their kinetic energies. But since the mass of the proto star was already in a radioactive state, hence the entire mass was in a molten state. And as this molten mass spewed outward and distanced itself by more than two radii, at that moment the molten mass becomes allowed to form its own gravitational field, which ultimately squeezes the mass together, and it thus become a perfect sphere. And this is how all heavenly bodies became such a perfect spheres. And this is how each galaxy was formed. Which means that everything begun from the smallest to the biggest, and vice verse.

Hence, there was order from the beginning and unto the very end, and it continues to be so ever since. And 'now' this order is maintained through the equilibrium of the three quantities of nature.

[Dave49]

Hi dave49! I probably have given you some insight, as how the universe was initiated, which annuls the Big bang. Therefore, whoever is looking back in time, is looking in wrong direction, because there never was a Big bang. Because in the very beginning it was the energy (tiny units of it) who were first introduced upon the face of the deep. And then these tiny units of energy established a cooperation with one another, on one to one basis, and they thus transformed into the first complete particles of matter, which should be called gravitons since the conditions that they create we call it gravitation. And then these gravitons under their own power slowly transformed into into other particles of matter. First into electrons, and then electrons themselves transformed into diatrons (which is a units of two electrons) which became neutral-without a charge. And then these diatrons under the force of gravity are forced into the third particle of matter which is neutron, and the neutrons are forced into a reversable action, whereby they transform into protons. And the neutrons and protons form a cooperation with one another, and thus nuclei become formed, and then atoms, molecules, and ultimately matter-mass starts to form. And as the mass keeps multiplying it slowly accumulates up to its maximum which is; 3.53x10>40 kg. which becomes one huge star, which may be called 'proto star' since it existed only once in its life time. And at that point in time? this proto star falls apart, and the reason is, because gravitation as a whole is composed of two forces, orbital and centripetal force.

But orbital force at that particular time is approx. 86000 times stronger than centripetal force.

And it is the orbital force that forces the mass into a rotational spin from its beginning, whereas the centripetal forces is the one that holds the mass together. But it ultimately comes a point in time and space when the orbital force (its rotational kinetic energy that is) surpasses the strength of the centripetal force, and that is the point in time when the proto star begins to brake apart. And as the mass disintegrates into a multitude of smaller pieces, all of which distance themselves in accordance of their kinetic energies. But since the mass of the proto star was already in a radioactive state, hence the entire mass was in a molten state. And as this molten mass spewed outward and distanced itself by more than two radii, at that moment the molten mass becomes allowed to form its own gravitational field, which ultimately squeezes the mass together, and it thus become a perfect sphere. And this is how all heavenly bodies became such a perfect spheres. And this is how each galaxy was formed. Which means that everything begun from the smallest to the biggest, and vice verse.

Hence, there was order from the beginning and unto the very end, and it continues to be so ever since. And 'now' this order is maintained through the equilibrium of the three quantities of nature.

 

Wow! That's a lot going on. You are telling of a lot of stuff just happening. Can you take each happening, and describe exactly the process by which it happened? And also it would help me greatly, if you could describe for me the process by which inanimate matter becomes animate matter. Or simply put, what is the process by which simple matter becomes alive. Thanks

Edited March 13, 2011 by Dave49

[michel123456]

You can't be serious.

[Ophiolite]

Dave,

be aware that Divinum's cosmology is quite non-standard. This does not mean it is wrong, but that it is very likely wrong. Certainly ideas expressed with the lack of internal cohesion, consistency with practical observations and zero adavantage over existing theories, as is the case here, usually turn out to be wrong.

 

As to your observations about old ideas about Mars and Venus, keep in mind that we have vastly better observational data on the early universe than we had on those planets at the time those oudated ideas flourished. That said, canals were never broadly accepted as such by other than a fringe element. I also suspect the idea of vast tropical forests on Venus was more of a popularisation than a conventional view. Keep in mind that it only since the sixties, or even the seventies that the study of planets became a respectable occupation.

[Dave49]

Dave,

be aware that Divinum's cosmology is quite non-standard. This does not mean it is wrong, but that it is very likely wrong. Certainly ideas expressed with the lack of internal cohesion, consistency with practical observations and zero adavantage over existing theories, as is the case here, usually turn out to be wrong.

 

As to your observations about old ideas about Mars and Venus, keep in mind that we have vastly better observational data on the early universe than we had on those planets at the time those oudated ideas flourished. That said, canals were never broadly accepted as such by other than a fringe element. I also suspect the idea of vast tropical forests on Venus was more of a popularisation than a conventional view. Keep in mind that it only since the sixties, or even the seventies that the study of planets became a respectable occupation.

 

As to michel123456, you are correct. I was not serious. It was an awkward attempt to show how most every one will make stuff up for what they don't know. It's not a fault, just human nature. Serious scientists do it all the time. The equation breaks down and no longer works, so they invent some particle or "dark" substance which cause the equation to work again. I realize it is an "educated" guess, but a guess none the less. Does it bring us any closer to the truth? That's anyone's "guess".

 

As to Ophiolite, every age considers itself to be "modern" with vastly superior methods and tools with which to "study" the universe around us. I watch and listen all the time to scientists who have observed the solar system with greatly improved telescopes. Some in space. And yet they say how astounded they are when viewing images from probes passing much closer to the planets and moons. Their Earth based observations giving way to what is actually out there. And that is just within our solar neighborhood. Never-the-less, they apply the exact same failed techniques to bodies billions of light years away and call it science. Should we consider these to be popularizations? Is it a respectable occupation since we are now "modern"? A century from now, it would be most interesting to me if I could be there to hear what they do with our best "guesses" of the present time. And their best guesses of their century will also be evaluated by the more "modern" guesses of the century after that.

 

I notice this forum has a section about pseudo science. Tell me, which science is real, and which is pseudo? It's quite impossible for me to tell. And I envy those who can.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Dave49

[Spyman]

I notice this forum has a section about pseudo science. Tell me, which science is real, and which is pseudo? It's quite impossible for me to tell. And I envy those who can.

Maybe this will help you make better distinctions:

 

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

 

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

 

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

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

 

 

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

 

Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, homeopathy, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.

 

The term pseudoscience is often considered inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.

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

[Dave49]

Ok. Try to divide the threads in this entire forum, all topics, as either science, or pseudo science. I will bet, that the farther you get from your nose outward into the universe, the more blurred the lines will became. Just watch out for all the dark matter, and dark energy.

 

I sometimes try to think of one thing I know for a fact, and how I know what I know. Turns out, that other than stuff told to me by others that I chose to believe, there is very little I absolutely know for sure. What about you guys?

 

But then, I'm just a Quark. LOL!

Edited March 14, 2011 by Dave49

[Spyman]

Ok. Try to divide the threads in this entire forum, all topics, as either science, or pseudo science. I will bet, that the farther you get from your nose outward into the universe, the more blurred the lines will became. Just watch out for all the dark matter, and dark energy.

Did you even bother to read my quotes and think about what they said?

 

Our knowledge and understanding of different phenomenas in and about the Universe is not perfect, we don't know everything and likely never will either, but lack of knowledge doesn't mean that the scientific method to try to learn more is equal to pseudoscience.

 

Some threads are certainly "blurred" but that doesn't depend on scientific consensus but are much more affected of participating peoples post quality.

[Ophiolite]

Dave you seem to be making a mistake that is common to those with average exposure to science. You think that scientific knowledge and science are the same thing. They are not. They are very different.

 

Science is a process. It is a simple process with a few simple variations. Start with an observation or to and think of an explanation, test the explanation, gather more observations, refine the epxlanation, test it further, build up a body of evidence, observations and tests that all confirm the progressively refined explanation until it is solid enough to granted the honorific of theory. At any point be prepared to substantially modify or completely disregard the evolving theory if a confirmed observation demonstrates it to be false.

 

That is science. Some theories in science are so well established that it would be wholly unreasonable than to do other than accept their reality. (With the proviso, that if evidence ever did emerge to cause that to be doubted then we should do so.)

 

Scientific knowledge, as a consequence, is more fluid and ever changing. That is its very attraction for many: the possibility of discovering something new about the world. Scienctific knowledge moves forward five paces then back one or two. At any one time we can have a high degree of confidence as to the relative soundness of our theories and our hypotheses. In that regard the confidence level for aspects of the early universe is very high. You may choose not to believe this, but you do so through intuition, not rigorous application of the scientific method.

[Dave49]

I actually agree with you guys. And I believe that the scientific approach should follow some rules. And if you try to explain something for which there seems to be none, then how can a theory go forward with out the provable answer. For example, take Evolution. This theory has a great amount of suppositions and guesses to it. But nothing can mean anything to me without the beginning. That entire body of work depends on bringing some matter together in some kind of controlled situation to cause single cell life to appear. This might be the end of the theory due to the fact that this, not only cannot be demonstrated, but also can not be duplicated by others. But no matter, we will just "say" that it happened on Earth. So without further ado, we go on to these single cell life forms combining, dividing, and becoming all animals, (and maybe plants), on the planet. This has an enormous body of work because some species sort of resemble other species.

 

But in my mind, for Evolution to be true, it would have to be a universal, ongoing process. So instead of digging up millions year old monkey bones and trying to make that the missing link, we should be able to go out in nature and see these in between stages walking around. But we can't because they don't exist. But does this deter the biological scientists? Doesn't even slow them down. So there must have been some "occurrence" which caused the evolutionary process to stop. And not only that, but it must have wiped out every missing link for all species. Sort of like the magical appearance of the single cell organisms. We just accept that it happened, and so the Creation theory believed by religious people is still just mysticism, and Evolution is science, so it must be correct.

 

Therefore the age old question of the chicken and the egg has two answers. If you are a Creationist, God created the chicken after it's own kind with it's seed inside it. But if you are an Evolutionist, then there must have been a time when a creature which was not quite a chicken, laid an egg with a chicken inside. And so another species was "born". So that leads us to believe that all life evolved from one thing to many different species. And no one seems to believe that both theories are equally dependent on "faith". Faith in the esteem of the person saying it.

 

So what do you know, and how do you know what you know? As for myself, all I know is what other people have told me either in person, or through their written word, that I decide to believe. I have nothing that was not provided by someone else. And so I know absolutely nothing absolutely for myself.

 

I think I will now stop coming to this forum. I'm pretty sure my ideas are not very welcome here. But thanks to all who tried to inform me further.

 

Blue skies,

 

Dave

Edited March 15, 2011 by Dave49

[Ophiolite]

Dave,

it is unfortunate that you have chosen to run away from the opportunity for enlightenment. Your ideas of what science is and what evolution is are distorted and wrong. If you are not willing to enter a dialogue with those who have knowledge in these areas then you will remain with wrong and distorted ideas. I do not truly believe this is what you want.

 

Many of us have training in the scientific process and are able to evaluate, objectively the published research work of others. A few of us - not including myself - have conducted such research and advanced the field of human knowledge a little here and there. I am very comfortable to accept the provisional findings of others because I am able to assess their data and their methodologies. By reviewing a body of research on a specific topic I can get a detailed flavour of current views on that topic. If I have less interest I could simply wait a year or two till the concepts make it into text books, or a little longer till they are to be found in popular books, or TV documentaries. At any time, however, I can dig back deeply into the research on the topic and make that objective evaluation of its value.

 

Your take on evolution seems to be straight out of the Creationist handbook. You are suggesting that a chef cannot be a chef unless he also knows how to grow the food and raise the animals he will cook. Nonsense. And it is just as much nonsense to declare that we need to have explained the origin of life in order to account for its evolution. Here's the thing: if God created the very first life by a supernatural act then stepped back, it would make not an iota of difference to evolution. It does not matter how that last common ancestor was established, it is what happens to that ancestor's descendants, controlled by evolution, that matters.

 

As to your thoughts on missing links, you are seriously confused in this area. If you are willing to remain in the forum there are many, myself included, who would be happy to help remove that confusion, as long as you were sincere in your intentions.

 

The rest is up to you.

[michel123456]

Dave is a skeptic, that is good.

He is interested, that is good.

He disagrees, that is good. There is nothing more annoying than 2 people agreeing: nothing new will come from such a situation.

[Dave49]

I just returned due to these two posts. You reminded me that I forgot to turn off the reply email notification. Done. Thanks.

 

It's best that I leave. I won't be baited back, and I certainly do not want to try to deprive anyone of their knowledge.

 

You guys take care,

 

Dave

Edited March 15, 2011 by Dave49

[michel123456]

Hey, where are you going?

[Ophiolite]

I find the public exhibition of willful ignorance very upsetting. And frustrating. And sad. And dangerous to the survival of humanity. It sickens me.