It is currently Tue Oct 22, 2019 9:12 am


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 9:08 pm
Posts: 496
Location: UK
spoon wrote:
Demios,
You say : "I have considered such models and they just don't work. If they did then people would be saying "Imagine raisin bread in 3D ..." but they don't they say "Imagine a ballon surface ...".
I really don't see the point here..! the growing dough model is in 3D already, dont imagine, just watch it grow, and BTW I don't think the dough-model is flawless, just better and simpler


It might be in 3D but it is wrong and has a lot of misleading failings (one which you appear not to have recognised. Its nature is directing you in the wrong direction. for example, your continued arguments for an "edge" and a "centre" are attributes of the model you have adopted and whilst everybody is pointing out your errors, you grasp even more to you model with its failings.

The site you reference will work with loads of models (including the ballon model) because it is so basic and so limited.

No point of discussing things with somebody who will not listen.

Bye (in this thread).
Ian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:45 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:24 am
Posts: 4375
Location: Greenwich, London
Yeah, the dough model might illustrate expansion but it is less useful than the balloon in my opinion precisely because it gives a false impression of a universe with a centre and a boundary. The universe has NO centre and NO boundary.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:44 pm
Posts: 172
spoon wrote:
The oldest object GRB 090423 is dated 13.1 Bn. years old, please se post above. This giant selfcontradiction, of a gamma-flash emitted before the assembly of Earth, and now suddenly the "light" bends back to hit our telescopes, can only be made right by admitting that the Universe have to be much-much older (and bigger) than NASA states. But we can only see objects up to a distance of 13.1 Bn. light years, surely this fact does not exclude the theory of a much-much older(larger) Universe.
Therefore no matter at which direction we observe today , we see the same picture, from the inside of a "little" spheric cutout with a radius of 13.1 Bn light years, appearing very uniform in density (the same all around). If we agree that the Universe is much-much bigger (read older), than the 13.7 Bn. years, ( quote Nasa WMAP 07 19 2010 ".. we can estimate the age of the universe to about 1%: 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years!


A couple of points to clarify :

The 13.7 billion year age of the Universe sets that size of Observable Universe at 13.7 billion light years.
The likelihood that the whole Universe also contains objects more distant from us than 13.7 billion light years (and whose light hasn't had time to reach us yet), does not, however, mean that the Universe is older than 13.7 billion years .

In the case of the GRB, although the gamma rays set out at the speed of light in our direction 13.1 billion years ago, the expansion of the Universe has been keeping us ahead of them ... the gap between the gamma rays and us has been steadily decreasing, but it has taken them 13.1 billion years to finally catch us.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Posts: 5274
Location: Lancashire
Is the term "Big Bang" not something of a misnomer? It conjures up the vision of an explosion occuring at a point source, which gives the impression that the Universe is expanding from a central point of origin.
Would "Big Flash" be more appropriate? A flash is amorphous, obviating the need for a central point.

_________________
brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:44 pm
Posts: 172
The name "Big Bang" was suggested by Fred Hoyle and allegedly meant as an insult - Hoyle was a proponent of the alternative Steady State theory.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
Tony Markham wrote:
Quote:
The answer to your question is that the Big Bang occurred "everywhere" within an incredibly small universe and that universe has expanded to become the universe that we live in today

How have you deduced that the Universe was incredibly small? From which other entity present at this time have you decided to assume 'small' against?
Would you not have been better saying 'incredibly infinite'?
Moving on regarding the skin of the proposed balloon, in assuming that there is a skin in the first place, automatically means you assume our Universe is expanding into some imaginary volumetric receiver and that there is an 'edge' where our Universe ends and where nothingness starts.
Firstly, the cosmos into which we look at night gives the appearance that we are sat in a volumetric sphere - looking at stars as if they surround us nice and neatly. This is not the case, the reason there is a star in the northern sky and one in the southern sky may not be because they are in opposite directions geometrically from the Earth, in fact they may be both in the same horizontal and vertical planes.
This is the easiest way I can explain to people:-
Imagine you are stood in front of a wall which is 20 feet in front of you, you see that the wall stretches 20 miles left, 20 miles right, 20 miles up and 20 miles down. The wall is pitch black but light bulbs have been placed along the wall everywhere.
This gives you a dimentional feeling when you look at the most distant bulbs.
Now imagine that this wall, instead of being 20 miles in each direction is billions of light years in every direction except with a slight twist to the equasion - the wall is warped a little. Because the wall is warped, objects you would normally see either left, right, up or down now appear behind you. Visually, the warped wall is wrapped around you as if you were sat in the middle but mathematically it is as flat as a pancake.
The Universe is mathematically flat but appears spherical. When you understand this, images of balloons will disappear out of your head and a new image will appear. The new image asks 'is the flat mathematical Universe warped concave or convex in accordance to Earths location'?
The answer to that is of course neither, because the wall is still flat. It just doesn't appear that way to our misunderstanding minds.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Posts: 5298
How do you know that the Universe is mathematically flat?
What proof do you have of this?

David


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
David Frydman wrote:
How do you know that the Universe is mathematically flat?
What proof do you have of this?

David

Because of the visible Universe you see every time you look into the night sky. It has been proven that what we see isn't what we should see at all.
The curvature of space is responsible for allowing us to see much, much more than you would if you were sat in a spherical direct line of sight of everything around you. All the inner objects would obscure most of the outer objects and we would see very little.
The wrap around effect we all see is merely the curvature of space on an monumental scale. We cannot assume that anything is a volumetric spherical design apart from nearby objects. But we are not talking about that, we are talking about the shape of the Universe.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Posts: 5298
I asked what proof YOU have not 'it has been proven'.
What mathematical proof do you have for your statement?

David.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
David Frydman wrote:
I asked what proof YOU have not 'it has been proven'.
What mathematical proof do you have for your statement?

David.

You don't understand what i'm talking about do you? The gravitational relationship between distant Galaxies or stellar objects is not related to our visual interpretation of them. It's been proven time and time again by many scientists. What you see out there from Earth is not what you get.
The imaginary 'inside of a balloon' which the curvature of space creates does not exist. There is no balloon, we don't know the true shape of the Universe but it is not the shape we see through our eyes.
If you cannot grasp that then I cannot help.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Posts: 5298
You said the Universe is mathematically flat.
Prove it.
Show me your mathematical proof for your conclusion.
It is not sufficient to quote others.
Show me your line by line proof of this or your mathematical reasons for your hypothesis.

David.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
David Frydman wrote:
You said the Universe is mathematically flat.
Prove it.
Show me your mathematical proof for your conclusion.
It is not sufficient to quote others.
Show me your line by line proof of this or your mathematical reasons for your hypothesis.

David.

Thats quite easy.
Universe=flat


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Posts: 5298
That is not a mathematical proof.
It is a belief you have, or at least a belief you state you have.

David


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:44 pm
Posts: 172
Quasar wrote:
Tony Markham wrote:
Quote:
The answer to your question is that the Big Bang occurred "everywhere" within an incredibly small universe and that universe has expanded to become the universe that we live in today

How have you deduced that the Universe was incredibly small? From which other entity present at this time have you decided to assume 'small' against?
Would you not have been better saying 'incredibly infinite'?

The Universe originally being incredibly small arises from rolling the current observed expansion of the Universe back 13.7 billion years. Also, confining all of the matter&energy in the Universe into a tiny volume would lead to very high temperatures, and this led to the release of the observed Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation as the temperature dropped below a critical level in the early stages of the expansion.

Regarding the questions about "flatness" :

Rather than referring to all objects being in a single plane, the term "flatness" used by Astronomers is merely a measure as to whether there is enough mass in the Universe to cause the expansion to eventually reverse (I believe the term "flatness" arose from the analogy sometimes used in which mass, such as a star or a black hole, distorts the "flat" space-time and so causes a gravitational effect on objects passing by.)

If the Universe overall is "flat" then it is so critically balanced that there is just the correct amount of mass for it to take infinite time to slow the expansion to zero. Early measures of the recession of distant galaxies did seem to support this. Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background also indicated that the Universe was "flat" at the time that this radiation was emitted.

However, observations of supernovae in yet more distant galaxies have shown that, in the last 5 billion years or so, the expansion of the Universe seems to have started to accelerate - this is put down to the effect of something called "dark energy", but astronomers have no idea currently as to what it is !


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 5:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:24 am
Posts: 266
Location: The White Rose County
Quote:
The Universe originally being incredibly small arises from rolling the current observed expansion of the Universe back 13.7 billion years

You have said once again that the Universe was incredibly small. Going back to the time when it was 'incredibly small', which relative entity have you measured 'small' against?
How can you say anything is 'small' when there is absolutely nothing to gauge big or small against?
How do you know that the Universe isn't the same size now as it was back then?
We've been here before, please read this thread:-
http://www.popastro.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12258


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group