Revisiting the Big Bang

[coldcreation]

Doomsday scenarios: :lol:

 

"As if in a dream where we swam but could not reach the shore, the universe likewise recedes as we study it, destined to disappear at the whim of time, space and the laws of physics. All that will be left are fading ghosts of distant galaxies, each an afterimage preserving a final moment as a swarm of stars slips into a netherworld of cosmic invisibility."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/universe_end_011212.html

"The projected end is, reassuringly, 20 billion years away. If our species survives the next 19 billion years (and there are serious doubts about this, given our Sun's projected fate) here are some signs that scientists of the future will want to look for.

• A billion years before the end, all galaxies will have receded so far and so fast from our own as to be erased from the sky, as in no longer visible.
  
• When the Milky Way begins to fly apart, there are 60 million years left.
  
• Planets in our solar system will start to wing away from the Sun three months before the end of time.
  
• When Earth explodes, the end is momentarily near.

At this point, there is still a short interval before atoms and even their nuclei break apart. "There's about 30 minutes left," Caldwell said, "But it's not quality time."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html

 

Catastrophysics

 

cc

[Tormod]

I prefer the version in the book, "The Five Ages of the Universe" myself.

 

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=29590

[arkain101]

why would it happen anyway.. and somewhoe have life as a chaos radomness on the side that is made of it, and tries to understand itself... lol.. there is intelligence behind it

 

Every single cubic millimeter of space is the exact center of the universe, and the precise location of the Big Bang. This is due to the fact that Space itself grew out of the Big Bang, and is still expanding as we speak.

then how can we expect to zoom light waves from a very far distance away to contain .. oh wait maybe i just answered my own question.

If the universe is a Sea of expansion from the endless centers.. than the older the photons you can look at. aka the ones furthest away, the furth back in time you can see .. from the data contained in photons, to witness how matter popped out of space time.

[Question]

Every single cubic millimeter of space is the exact center of the universe, and the precise location of the Big Bang. This is due to the fact that Space itself grew out of the Big Bang, and is still expanding as we speak.

 

Wouldn't that mean since its expanding farther, that there is an area outside of space to begin with so it could move into it? But that would make no sense space filling up space?

[Southtown]

The universe is not expanding.

[lindagarrette]

if there was an explosion or sudden expansion, all particles for some reason would have expanded from this sphere and rushed away from its center. several questions occur :

You need to read some popular books on theoretical physics. Stephen Hawking's classic Brief History of Time would be a good place to start. Or, look here http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html

[lindagarrette]

oops, I answered an earlier post. Still applies, though....

[Tormod]

The universe is not expanding.

 

Come on, you can do better than that. It is a strong statement which requires some backup, ST.

[HydrogenBond]

The easiest way to explain the expansion of the BB is not to start at the primordial atom, but before that. In other words, if the primordial atom was the affect from another more primary cause, that first cause could contain enough potential energy to not only make a primordial atom, but could also have enough potential energy left over to cause it to expand. I still like the idea of a slowdown from a speed of light reference into a finite velocity reference where is matter is now able to exist. The difference in potential energy between the C and near C reference states goes into the energy needed for the expansion.

 

As we continue the expansion, the special relativity potential energy contained within the orginal primordial atom (near C) decreases further. This is reflected by the stretcheing out space/time, creating an analogous slower and slower relativistic reference. This potential energy difference then goes into other potential energy intensive expressions, causing the forces of nature to differentiate out of the unified force.

[Buffy]

The universe is not expanding.

Whether you're Lemaître, Gammow, Hubble, Guth, Hawking, Linde, Fred Hoyle, or McCutcheon, *everyone* agrees that it is expanding. There's debate about Big Bang vs. Steady State (Hoyle) and the wacky gravity-is-expansion (McCutcheon), but no debate about the fact that its expanding. There's no other explanation about Hubble's red-shift other than expansion, unless it is really all an illusion projected on a spherical screen a couple of light years out, a la The Truman Show.

 

You're pullin' our collective leg with a classical troll. Whyfore South? Bored?

 

Inflationarily,

Buffy

[coldcreation]

Whether you're Lemaître, Gammow, Hubble, Guth, Hawking, Linde, Fred Hoyle, or McCutcheon, *everyone* agrees that it is expanding. There's debate about Big Bang vs. Steady State (Hoyle) and the wacky gravity-is-expansion (McCutcheon), but no debate about the fact that its expanding. There's no other explanation about Hubble's red-shift other than expansion, unless it is really all an illusion projected on a spherical screen a couple of light years out, a la The Truman Show.

 

You're pullin' our collective leg with a classical troll. Whyfore South? Bored?

 

Inflationarily,

Buffy

 

What about Arp, Nernst, McMillan, Millican, Segal, Mittelmann (and others), all of whom agree that the universe is nonexpanding?

 

See a thread called Redshift z for an alternative to the Doppler interpretation that agrees with observations, all of them.

 

Regards

 

PS. Keep an open mind, the majority does not rule in science.

 

Coldcreation

[Southtown]

Come on, you can do better than that. It is a strong statement which requires some backup, ST.

Thanx for tha vote of confidence. =P

 

You're pullin' our collective leg with a classical troll. Whyfore South? Bored?

I knew it would get a response.

“

Measuring equipment, LOL. You mean redshift?

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/1745-can-distant-quasar-lie-within-nearby.html

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=1”

—

Southie

[Buffy]

I knew it would get a response.

Tee hee! Okay, I never really read the redshift z thread, and I'll have to do some research before I blast away at this one. BUT, lemme just say that based on a quick look at some of the sources I see some classical "everything-you-know-is-wrong-theory" fallacies lurking:

• Classicists point out multiple causes for redshift, while the opponents try to say its only due to expansion, because that's what they can argue against. This is necessary to justify their conclusions, but its the hole in the argument big enough to drive a truck through:
  
• The places where the datapoints are played up (like this one which looks like a facinating site), try desperately to say that because one datapoint is not yet explained, the whole theory must be wrong: "Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified." and are self righteously dismissive: "Professional astronomers seem to be so enamored of their 'redshift equals distance' theory that it damages their eyesight."

If you have to misrepresent the givens, and then blythely skip over some basics of predicate logic, you're not proving anything. Sorry folks, science don't work that way!

 

Nonetheless, "the plasma/electric fields are a major force in the universe" is an interesting concept, although from what I know about the electro-weak force, you're gonna need to come up with some major new ideas about how it works to have it work at interstellar distances. More reading to do...

 

Boy are my arms tired,

Buffy

[lindagarrette]

If you have to misrepresent the givens, and then blythely skip over some basics of predicate logic, you're not proving anything. Sorry folks, science don't work that way!

 

Nonetheless, "the plasma/electric fields are a major force in the universe" is an interesting concept, although from what I know about the electro-weak force, you're gonna need to come up with some major new ideas about how it works to have it work at interstellar distances. More reading to do...

 

Boy are my arms tired,

Buffy

Good point. Science doesn't even try to prove anything. It just tries to explain how things work and goes along with the theory that hasn't been disproved. Speculation is fine and dandy but worthless without real evidence. Real evidence is supported by recognized authorities who are nevertheless obligated to pursue alternatives until they are disproven. It's a wonderfully self-corrective system that keeps a lot of garbage theories from taking hold.

 

Unless Southtown's notion about the non-expansion has more substance than the Redshift Z thread proposes, it goes in the dumpster along with the notion that earth is 6000 years old.

[Southtown]

Real evidence is supported by recognized authorities who are nevertheless obligated to pursue alternatives until they are disproven. It's a wonderfully self-corrective system that keeps a lot of garbage theories from taking hold.

Ebb and flow, m'lady.

 

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=5

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/345928&erFrom=-8236981583375413392Guest

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.211;jsessionid=i2IvET0xcGsbaAK7BJ?cookieSet=1&journalCode=astro

[Buffy]

Flow n' Ebb, dude!

 

Here's the first rebuttal I stumbled upon, and it looks like there are more:

 

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/Arp_controversy.htm

 

Happy reading!

 

Indubitably,

Buffy

[coldcreation]

Unless Southtown's notion about the non-expansion has more substance than the Redshift Z thread proposes, it goes in the dumpster .

 

What substance exactly do you feel is missing from the Redshift z thread?

 

cc