Expanding Universe

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by S.A.M., May 9, 2007.

  1. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Did he actually interepret the data as expansion or did he just get the data?

    A flat planet also seemed the most likely explanation just 500 years ago...

    I'm not debating what is expanding, I'm debating whether there is anything expanding at all.

    Again, is it really expansion? The idea of expansion is a simple interpretation of the data. Too often, we look at the data we get, interpret it in one way and forget there might be other interpretations to it. I just plain have a gut feeling the universe is not expanding. I have a gut instinct it is rotating, like the galaxy. The galaxy also exihibits a very uniform behaviour (aside from the region close to the centre, of course. The speed of the arms is fairly uniform).

    We have to remember that altough the laws of the universe apply to the whole universe, objects will behave differently according to the scale due to the range and strenght that each force has. First of all, you have the rotation of our planet. The speed doesn't vary much, Then we have the rotation of the sun. The speed of the sun's rotation varies. The speed at the equator is different then the speed at the poles. Then you have the rotation of the solar system. Once again, we have the same laws but the objects behave differently due to the scale. Then, the galaxy is also rotating, and the differences of speed are currently explained only by the terms "dark energy" and "dark matter". Then we have clusters and super clusters and quasars! Massive! Everything in the universe is rotating. Wouldn't it be strange if the universe itself wasn't? Maybe redshifts and blueshifts give us a clue about the rotation of the universe...


    When you look at a quasar, are you looking at it right now or in the past? Also, what is the shape of the universe? Is it a sphere?

    The earth is like a ballon. All that I need to do to point to its center is to point right below me. Why can't I do the same with this version of the universe?

    Really? Or would it appear that everything is static because for a matter of fact everything is expanding? Could you really observe it given the scale?

    Here's some info on Virgo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_cluster

    Some details: http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/messier/more/virgo_gal.html
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    The universe is 'flat' in the sense that parallel lines do not converge nor diverge as they do on curved surfaces.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    The expansion is an interpretation of the data.

    Let's not forget that distant objects constitutes mostly of massive galaxies called "quasars". Our data only predicts some for of high speed given by the redshifts. Expansion is an interpretation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The constant epsilon is a feature which describes certain aspects of electric interactions. Its value depends on the environment in which electric fields exist. It is called the "permittivity". Unfortunately, when the environment is a vacuum, the concept is generalised, and the constant espilon zero is given the somewhat unfortunate but understandable name of "the permittivity of the vacuum".

    Suppose I attach object A to one end of a metre ruler, and object B to the other end. Then, suddenly and mysteriously, I somehow double the distances between each mark on the ruler, and also the distance between object A and B. Then, I get another, unaltered ruler, and measure the new separation of A and B. What do I find? A and B are now two metres apart, even though they have remained attached to the ends of my original ruler.

    Similarly, if objects A and B are sitting at particular coordinates in space, and the physical distances between those coordinates change due to the expansion of space, then when I measure the distance with an unstretched ruler I find that A and B are further apart, even though the coordinate locations of A and B are unchanged.

    If you want a technical explanation, the best place to start is any introductory text on general relativity. Would you like me to recommend one?
     
  8. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Argument of authority.
    Argument of population.


    Busted....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    I didn't know science believed in non-material things....
     
  10. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Old news. May 9th, 2000...

    Read it here: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s124978.htm

    "New evidence supports flat Universe
    Results from a collaborative experiment confirm that the universe is flat and 95% of it is unknown matter. "


    I'm sorry you are so late... LOL!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    The shape of the universe is very significant to this discussion, btw....

    Different shapes will give you different rates of acceleration, desacelaration and stactic. Open and closed universes would also be affected by those shapes and the whole hypothesis is also affect by those two factors.

    Fuck... we have barely scracthed the surface of this discussion... :shrug:
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Truthseeker:

    He interpreted it as expansion.

    Maybe we'll have a better big bang theory in another 500 years. So what?

    The observational evidence rules out rotation. Every direction we look, we see objects moving away from us, not rotating around us. And none are coming towards us (with a few local exceptions).

    Well, all I can say is: do the math and publish your ideas. Submit them to a peer-reviewed journal of physics and see whether they can withstand proper scientific scrutiny.

     
  13. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    Isnt the universe expansion also accelerating? Whats that about?
     
  14. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    You guys gotta remember that every time we have an unexplainable varialbe in the equation, those unexplainable variables points out some sort of flaw in our hypothesis and, thus, our interpretations of our data. Because at the end of the day, that's all taht we are doing. We are not going out there and observing whether the universe is flat or not. We are getting some form of data which allows us to make an indirect observation which, subsequently gives us hints to the actual circumstances of the universe, which are used to give meaning to the data- aka interpretation.

    The fact that we have two massive unknown variables (dark matter and dark energy) is a major red flag in this puzzle. We can't always just try to fit the data with our interpretations. At some point, the data that we get will make our interpretations so absurd that we will have to give up onour interpretations and start from the scracth, with a fresh perspective on the issue. In which case, we will have aolot more data then the last time we interpreted the original data, so we will be able to be more accurate in our interpretations...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    James R,
    Why can't you treat length contraction in the same manner? Of course, in both cases your 'ruler' would be based on the speed of light.
     
  16. fishtail Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    No, i am sorry but ,all your rhetoric leads to some sort of insanity, i do not want to believe in some thing that is not tangible, if you want to believe
    in some sort of ghostly reality you are welcome, i challenge you to define what his non entity of space is , a space that can expand , be distorted by gravity and yet is not tangible?
     
  17. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Not in the least. The "argument of authority", as you so glibly put it, is based on the solid principle that the professionals who have been studying the situation for far longer than most people here have even been alive certainly DOES add a huge degree of believability to those positions.

    Or would you actually feel more comfortable accepting what's said by some little 15-year-old punk???????????? Or you own untrained thoughts??? Either of those is what I would strongly call absurd! The very day you can out do the professionals is the day you BECOME one of them! So what would that make you then - unbelievable? :bugeye:
     
  18. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Quote?

    Or simply another theory? What's wrong with Brane theory?
    (Well... they are all hypothesis, btw...)

    As I said, the sun and the galaxy rotates at different speeds depending on where you look at. Can't the same happen with the universe?

    Yes. And when you look at the past, wouldn't it be reasonable to argue that at some point you will see the Big Bang- that is, the "centre" of the universe? Haven't we been trying to do that for a while now?

    Do we even know there are only 4 dimensions?

    Well, barely. Distant objects are so massive I wonder how they distort space-time. Gravity lenses make the universe more like a house of mirrors then anything that barely resembles something discernable... LOL!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Again, then explain this: http://www.as.arizona.edu:8080/Astro/1042673451/index_html

    Three quasars at the "Edge" of the universe? Which "Edge"?
    Quoted from article:

    "These discoveries are giving us the first glimpse of the universe when it was only 5 percent of its present age."

    Sounds like we can see towards the centre....
     
  19. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    HAHAHA!!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No. The argument from authority does not disprove their point. It siply points out to the fact that just because they are experts, doesn't mean their words are set on stone. An expert of the subject 500 years ago wouldd think those guys today are completely nuts! LOL!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. fishtail Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    Please, your ideas of what is right or wrong in science is some what distorted by obscured, non proven, even conjectured views of what is accepted by main stream view.
     
  21. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    No argument against that! In fact, there's little doubt in anyone's mind that the current theories will change in the future. Real science is an adventure that never ends. But at the same time, there's very, very little chance that better answers can possibly spring from untrained minds.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Bull!!! You haven't even the vaguest idea of what you're talking about. Electrical properties of space, indeed! Yuck!!! As I said earlier, don't quit school anytime soon - you've got LOTS to learn yet.
     
  23. fishtail Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    Guys if you want to revert to some basic science , the only reality we have is geometry, all the rest is conjecture, proposed by some big balled scientists,
    who think the general public can be hoodwinked into thinking they know more
    than we do, when it comes to cosmology talk, you may as well listen to ufology talk.
     

Share This Page