I am sure that this question has been answered, but I am wondering what the answer is. Suppose an infinite or almost infinite universe started with a lot of partilces moving at random velocities. After billions of years, the pbjects farthest from us would be those created by gravitational collapse of partilces whose speeds were greatest and directed away from us. Prior to discovery of the CMB radiation, the above seems like it would have been an alternative explanation for an apparently expanding universe. Why was it never considered as an explanation?
the cosmic microwave background ..... is still in question. as is the entire big bang. for example. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As a scientist, always remember, that 'the more you know', simply translates into 'the less you are sure of', for clearly imaginable reasons, some of which maybe valid. -MT
I don't follow your logic here. Since you have posited random particle movement, why would those further away be moving fastest. That makes no sense unless you mean the speed is random, but not the direction - but you said velocity, not speed. The higher speed of distant bodies in the Big Bang hypothesis is related to the non-random direction of the objects.
In a nonexpanding universe an obvious and much simpler explanation of the microwave background is that we are seeing the temperature of the underlying intergalactic medium. If all the observed helium were produced in stars, the energy released would be just the right amount to generate the microwave background. --- the redshift isn't evidence of expansion either... the redshift might be caused by light losing energy during its long voyage through the ether of space. if redshifts were caused mainly by velocity they ought to show a continuous range of values, but instead they show periodicities, being multiples of certain basic units. Not only is the redshift not a reliable measure of velocity; it is not a reliable measure of distance either, for there is abundant evidence that galaxies at the same distance can have vastly different redshifts. A galaxy’s redshift appears to depend partly on its age, for active, low-redshift galaxies are sometimes surrounded by high-redshift galaxies (often quasars) that have apparently been ejected from them; pairs of these embryo-galaxies often line up on either side of the parent galaxy and are connected to it by luminous bridges or jets of matter. The redshifts of galaxies and stars appear to decrease as they get older.
It is not exactly nonsense, just not the mainstream view. A small, but significant group of physicists/astronomers/cosmologists do not buy the Big Bang explanation and offer alternative views that have a degree of merit. Nothing that c7 has posted has not been presented in the pages of peer reviewed journals. I just wish he would provide some citations when he is presenting what he wells knows are highly controversial postions.
One noted astronomer wrote a book on the topic discussed by c7. Quite interesting reading, lots of photos, and he made strong points. However, ophiolite's comment is most cogent.
Ophiolite: If a large number of objects initially had random velocities (both speed & direction), it seems obvious to me that after billions of years, the farthest objects (in any direction) from a particular vantage point would be those with the greatest speeds relative to that vantage point. It seems obvious to me that the distance from a particular vantage point would be approximately a linear function of speed. Somebody prior to acceptance of the Big Bang said: “The farthest objects are traveling fastest. That is why they are farthest.” BTW: I accept the Big Bang, although I rooted for Continuous Creation. I liked it so much that I stuck with it for a few years after I should have given it up.
Eh? Measurable velocities depend on an arbitrary vantage point? What happens to your velocities if you pick a different vantage point? I take issue with your opening post too; Just wtf? is an 'almost infinite' Universe? How do you know when you have reached Infinity, so you can reverse a little and be at the 'almost infinite' stage? Simply, for particles Brownian motion applies without reference to arbitrary vantage points; Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (from http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/Physics_AS/Module_2/Topic_9/topic_9__kinetic_theory.htm)
Well this is patent nonsense. If you don't like/follow phlogistician's mathematical treatment consider common sense. A proportion of the distant, but fast particles will be travelling towards us from a distant point. At various times they will be quite close, but moving towards us; then right next to us; then moving away, but quite close. Their velocity in every instance will be the same. Onn this one dinosaur you are simply mistaken.
I do not think that a formula relating to Brownian movement is applicable to random motion of particles and/or galaxies in a volume as large as a good sized universe. Sorry to be sloppy with the phrase almost infinite universe. In the world of mathematics, it is nonsense. At our current level of technology, a universe with a radius of a few hundred trillion light years is a practical approximation to an infinite universe, since we cannot observe any difference between it and an infinite universe. Note that prior to about 1950-1965, I do not think anyone had a good estimate of the size or age of the universe. A universe which might be 100 trillion years (or infinitely) old and which might be 100 trillion light years in radius (or infinite) allows for cosmologies other than the Big Bang, which seems to relate to current estimates of the size & age oif the universe. Cosmologies which seemed like a good idea at the time might seem silly now. I did not make up the idea of a cosmology based on the notion that the galaxies farthest away are farthest because they are traveling the fastest. is idea. It was one of several cosmologies proposed prior to the Big Bang winning out. The Steady State universe was shot down when quasars were discovered. The Steady State theory claimed that the universe did not change in its major properties over long periods of time. Quasars refuted this major premise. There was a cosmology based on the concept of a universe containing approximately equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, with the expansion fueled by mutual annihilation at boundaries between opposite types of galaxies and also due to early annihilation of particles & objects smaller than galaxies prior to the formation of galaxies. This one seemed a bit hokey and did not survive long. I forget what shot this one down. I only remember that it did not survive as long as the Steady State idea. I think there was an explanation of the Hubble observations based on the concept of the farthest objects being farthest because they are moving fastest. Estimates of the age of the universe at 20 billion years or less might have shot this one down, but I do not remember what was wrong with it. In a universe several trillion years old and a radius of trillions of years, the notion might be viable. It might also require continuous creation of matter, a feature of the Steady State universe. I started this thread because I did not remember what killed this idea, and wondered if anybody knew. I do not think it was dismissed as totally silly when first proposed. There may have been a few other notions considered to be plausible prior to observation of the CMB making Big Bang the winner.
You can post the city limits sign at the 180 billion light year wide mark. That should do for starters. I guess that means the universe is big and old enough for all us now. Right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060807_mm_huble_revise.html
