Expansion Methods

[jackson33]

Good. Take that into one of the redshift threads. Especially your examples of those who use redshift to disprove BB.

 

the opponents of BBT are well documented and my guess is you have read all if not more than me. i do think however, the ideas fall more to errors in the shift explanations, then BBT.

 

i will suggest, that if you cumulate our speed as a planet, solar system, galaxy and our little galaxy cluster; add this to one of equal potential heading in the opposite direction you may find this total figure interesting. i won't bother you with any of the distortion or concept thoughts...

[Buffy]

if the total mass of one galaxy could attract the total mass of another, i assume you would agree both would head for a central point.

Why? Have you ever studied orbital mechanics? Even if you haven't, do you understand what the folks at Jet Propulsion Lab do to accellerate spacecraft when they send them past planets like Jupiter? Gravity alters trajectories, it does not magically define a point at which objects that are near by *must* collide. This does not require Dark Matter to explain: it works quite well with planets stars and asteroids right here in our local neighborhood! Add a bit of Dark Matter to adjust the actual mass of galaxies, and they work exactly the same way. What's confusing or strange about any of this?

since we know they do occasionally (not often) collide, it will be because they are in the same paths.

Given the density, they collide exactly as one would expect based on probability. If this seems like its not very often, its just because there's so much goll'darn empty space out there! Its *hard* to make things collide!

SS does not require expansion.

Nope, but it doesn't rule it out either. The C-Field came before Halton Arp and the "redshift is intrinsic" folks. Pick your poison, but I'll tell ya that your assertion earlier that there are "an equal number" of people for and against BB is um, off by a couple orders of magnitude...there's a reason for that...

on dimensions my thought are more along concepts. if we saw in two dimension, we would have to think everything was painted in the sky and wonder who or what was painting those silly little dots. if we saw only in black and white, there would be no blue sky to question why. when i address an issue, in my mind anyway, i try to figure an extreme and back off to a point where it could add up.

That's why its really important to really try to understand as much as you can of the actual theories as opposed to the over-simplified versions: these descriptions err on the side of being "understandable under common sense" and have limits that can seemingly "demonstrate that the theory is wrong" when the theory is fine, its the simplification that's wrong!

 

Also be careful of going to the extreme and then backing up: you can easily forget how helpful Occam's Razor is in figuring things out.

this is hard to explain but since i clean sewers for a living i find the idea compelling to that of instant acceptance.

I applaud your refusal to instantly accept things and I don't think any of us here would recommend that you do. You'll only get it if you think it through completely yourself. But do be open to the other opinions and weigh the facts: therein lies enlightenment!

at this point in a discussion i usually get hit with my grammar. so I'll accept my math knowledge and look forward to the grammar.

For *most* of our members, English is a second language. If you get pestered about your grammar, let one of the moderators know about it.

 

Generating matter,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

The interesting thing about the whole story is that if you have an observer at the distance from where the Microwave Background Radiation emanates, and he looks back towards Earth, Earth won't be there. Where Earth 'is', there'd simply be MBR, the remnants of the Big Bang. We see at the ends of our visible universe the remnants of the Big Bang, and that's the same what an observer at the 'edge' of our universe will see when he looks back towards Earth. The guy at the 'edge' of our universe, will be exactly in the center of his own universe, also with a visible 'edge' of around 14-15 billion light years away, and it will look the same in all directions.

 

The furthest point he'll see when he looks towards Earth and the furthest point he'll see when he looks 180 degrees away from Earth is actually (quite confusingly) one and the same point, because 14 billion years ago, all possible points was in the same place. And the 'place' they were at, is expanding. So, every visible point was once one and the same, regardless of where you look.

 

There is no center, however intuitive the idea might be.

[LJP07]

Id' rather this discussion about " Expansion Methods " and " Expansion Ideas ", and one question still poses a problem in this regard:

 

Where is the centre of the Universe, if any and why?

 

I read an article the other day, the most interesting paragraph contained the following:

 

Few people realize how different the big bang cosmology is from their conceptions of it. The misleading popular name of the theory causes most people to picture a small three-dimensional ball—having a centre and an outer edge—exploding outward into an empty three-dimensional space. After millions of years, the matter would coalesce into stars and galaxies. The whole group of billions of galaxies would constitute an ‘island’ (or archipelago) in a ‘sea’ of otherwise empty space. Like the public’s three-dimensional initial ball, such an island would have a unique geometric centre. By ‘centre’ I mean nothing esoteric, but simply the dictionary definition:

 

‘Centre … 1. A point equidistant or at the average distance from all points on the sides or outer boundaries of something.’40

 

Most people, including most scientists and even many astronomers, picture the big bang that way. But expert cosmologists picture the big bang theory entirely differently! They reject both a three-dimensional initial ball and an ‘island’ universe. In the ‘closed’ big bang (the most favored version), they imagine—purely by analogy—the three-dimensional space we can see as being merely the surface of a four-dimensional ‘balloon’ expanding out into a ‘hyperspace’ of four spatial dimensions (none is time).41 See Figure 9.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Cosmologists imagine the big bang theory by means of an analogy to an expanding balloon. The analogy confines the three space dimensions we can see to merely the 3-D surface of the 4-D balloon. The galaxies would be like dust on the surface, spreading apart with the expansion. In this scheme, no galaxy could claim to be the unique centre. The true centre of the expansion would be in the region within the balloon, a region the inhabitants of the surface cannot perceive. [Click image to enlarge.]

 

They picture the galaxies like grains of dust all over the surface of the balloon. (No galaxies would be inside the balloon.) As the expansion proceeds, the rubber (representing the ‘fabric’ of space itself) stretches outward. This spreads the dust apart. From the viewpoint of each grain, the others move away from it, but no grain can claim to be the unique centre of the expansion. On the surface of the balloon, there is no centre. The true centre of the expansion would be in the air inside the balloon, which represents ‘hyperspace’, beyond the perception of creatures confined to the 3-D ‘surface’.

 

If you are having trouble understanding this analogy, try viewing the video version of Starlight and Time.42 Its computer-generated animated graphics have helped many people understand the analogy, walking them through it step by step.

 

Here’s another way to look at the expert cosmologists’ concept. If you could travel infinitely fast in any particular direction available to us, they claim you would never encounter any large volume of space unpopulated with galaxies. You would not be able to define an ‘edge’ or boundary around the galaxies, and so you could not define a geometric centre. One cosmologist says this about the popular ‘island universe’ misconception:

 

‘This is wrong … [The big bang cosmos] has no centre and edge.’43

 

So the big bang has no centre. No unique centre would exist anywhere within the three space dimensions we can see. This explains why its supporters reject any interpretation of redshift quantization requiring a centre. Below I show that their demand for acentricity44 stems from an arbitrary presupposition not justified by observations.

 

Article accredited to Creation Ministries International by D.Russell Humphreys.

 

Even after reading that, I wasn't too sure and it may reinforce those that don't however, can someone explain this concept.

[Boerseun]

I think you're missing the point here, Prolu.

 

In the Big Bang cosmology, every single point is the exact center of the universe. It could be argued then that the whole universe is just one big point, but a single point that's been stretching for the last 14 or so billion years - but a point without an edge. Haha - that's one big edgeless point, lemme tell you...

[Tormod]

Most people, including most scientists and even many astronomers, picture the big bang that way. But expert cosmologists picture the big bang theory entirely differently! They reject both a three-dimensional initial ball and an ‘island’ universe. In the ‘closed’ big bang (the most favored version), they imagine—purely by analogy—the three-dimensional space we can see as being merely the surface of a four-dimensional ‘balloon’ expanding out into a ‘hyperspace’ of four spatial dimensions (none is time).41 See Figure 9.

 

Whoever wrote this article is not very learned, or he is very ignorant. The balloon surface analogy is what is commonly used - by everyone who is learning this. That "most scientists" have got this wrong is laughable.

 

Article accredited to Creation Ministries International by D.Russell Humphreys.

 

Now this is perhaps one of the least credible sources you can find. How about reading a book on cosmology instead - I recommend The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

We assume that our understanding of the nature of light is correct and infer an expanding universe from the so-called 'red shift', correct? The rest of this discussion rests on the truth value of those observations.

 

Just to make sure I'm focused on the same referents you guys are, when you say 'expanding universe', do you mean that the universe is becoming larger than we are, proportionally? Let me state that another way: if the universe gets bigger by 10%, will I also get bigger by 10% or will I remain the same size?

[Boerseun]

We assume that our understanding of the nature of light is correct and infer an expanding universe from the so-called 'red shift', correct? The rest of this discussion rests on the truth value of those observations.

 

Just to make sure I'm focused on the same referents you guys are, when you say 'expanding universe', do you mean that the universe is becoming larger than we are, proportionally? Let me state that another way: if the universe gets bigger by 10%, will I also get bigger by 10% or will I remain the same size?

You will remain the same size.

[Tormod]

Let me state that another way: if the universe gets bigger by 10%, will I also get bigger by 10% or will I remain the same size?

 

Yes, the expansion occurs in intergalactic space, not within objects like galaxies, stars, planets etc.

 

If all things grew, including the Earth and the Moon, then the distance between the two should be shorter (since a. the physical distance would be smaller and b. the gravitational attraction larger).

 

If everything grew, including our rulers, there would be no measurable shifts in anything.

[Racoon]

What is the universe expanding into?

 

Into What is the universe expanding?

 

[Buffy]

What is the universe expanding into?

Time!

 

Tick tock,

Buffy

[ronthepon]

Don't really mean to sound silly here, but how would we be able to tell if everything was expanding? (Including us)

 

I mean to say that if the universe was expanding absolutely... well... homogeneously, we would expand along with everything else and maybe would not be able to tell the difference, right?

 

Aww... nevermind. For this to happen, the universal constants are going to have to be changing continuously, and if that's happening, then well... don't I seem silly?

[Buffy]

Don't really mean to sound silly here, but how would we be able to tell if everything was expanding? (Including us)

You couldn't, but according to some, its the "other" explanation for gravity. See our 797, and I'm sure steve would be happy to tell you all about it!

 

Does this expansion make me look fat,

Buffy

[Racoon]

Time!

 

Tick tock,

Buffy

 

Time as in the stuff we measure with a Gregorian calander to remind us of the Sabbath Day? *only joking* :hihi:

 

Time goes on forever then? Is there no expansion of time? Is time receeding, or perhaps "yielding" to our universal expansion?

 

Its enuff to make one wonder.

[Buffy]

No, time *itself* isn't expanding. Time is just a dimension, measured in ticks of the clock just like "up" is measured in meters. The *universe* is expanding *along* those four dimensions... We know what its like to eat too many chocolate malts and have our tummies "expand forward", but since we don't have freedom of movement, "moving along the time dimension" is a little bit alien to most...

 

Steping backward in time,

Buffy

[Erasmus00]

there is no reason to consider what we see clearly, what we think we see thats not clear or that beyond what is seem should act in any different manner. therefore to me what we see locally is much of what should be to the limits of whatever are in this Universe.

 

With one or two exceptions, every thing we see is moving AWAY from us. How can this not lead to the idea of an expanding universe?

-Will

[Erasmus00]

We assume that our understanding of the nature of light is correct and infer an expanding universe from the so-called 'red shift', correct? The rest of this discussion rests on the truth value of those observations.

 

Doppler shifts were well understood long before they were applied to stars. The spectral lines of atoms were well catagorized long before they were applied to stars. Both of these are well tested. Regardless of the which theory you choose to believe, these experimental properties exist.

 

Hence, you have two choices:

1. Assume the laws of physics are pretty much the same everywhere, and use your well tested ideas to study things like stars.

2. Assume the laws of physics are random and variable throughout the universe. Hence, give up since physics cannot be directly studied in those locations.

 

Obviously, physicists choose the first.

-Will