|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
A Big Bang conundrum
A Big Bang conundrum
I’ve been interested in theories related to the origin of the universe for quite some time, and have spent hours consuming information on the subject through newspaper clippings, television shows and the wealth of knowledge offered online. I often find presented theories to be flawed, and have trouble reconciling some perceived problems. I’ve collected the topics that I take issue with in this essay and would like to hear your thoughts -- it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate the long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the popular Big Bang model. The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it is now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded. What astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it was at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years ago. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-years-old light rays can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from the observer’s position within the Milky Way galaxy. But that doesn’t jibe with the expansion time line. During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the location of the young and small universe. Now, in the present location, observers are looking back to where the Milky Way came from and seeing light rays from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far, this can still make sense, as long as the Milky Way was traveling near parallel to the light and at a velocity near the speed of light, just to stay ahead, and 13 billion years later, intercept the somewhat older light beams from the emitting galaxy -- which I’ll call "Galaxy A" for illustrative purposes. Let’s go back and take a look at deep field space as a spherical entity, with observers on Earth in center of this sphere, with seen objects extending out in all directions. Looking toward Galaxy A, the observed light originates from a time when the universe was relatively young and small. But looking in the opposite direction from Galaxy A, observers also see 13-billion-years-old galaxies which originated from the same small Big Bang. There is no experimental nor logical explanation for the above event to happen within the Big Bang model, and the phrase; "The Big Bang happened everywhere" does not seem to explain it either. Hence, it stands to reason that objects opposite from Galaxy A are actually 26 billion light years away from the compact small universe. But that doesn’t make sense and here’s why. Let’s examine the galaxy, the one blasted far ahead of the Milky Way, and call it "Galaxy X." The light rays coming from Galaxy X are coming back toward our observing Milky Way while the Milky Way is at the same time hurtling toward the rays. So if the Milky Way has traveled 13 billion light years from the infant universe, and the observed light from Galaxy X is 13 billion years old when seen by astronomers, X and its neighbors must be 26 billion light years away from the young and small universe. Those galaxies have traveled twice as far as the Milky Way has traveled from the small universe. How did Galaxy X and it’s neighbors get way out there in 13 billion years if they are from the small confined entity of galaxies? They would have to travel far faster than the speed of light to do so. Let’s also examine the validity of the red shift observation, the one that scientists used to reinforce and ultimately validate the Big Bang theory. It’s a generally accepted concept that the universe is larger than what the observed view indicates. The Milky Way is not in the center of the universe but rather in the middle of the observable section of universe. Hence, its inevitable that relative to the observer the view of galaxies in expanding motion are not only moving away but also moving sideways. This extra motion may add an uncounted factor to the true meaning of the red shift observation. Also, those 13-billion-year-old light rays that are being observed have traveled an incredibly long distance -- through cosmic dust and gravitational fields, including neighboring galaxies and finally penetrate the denser interstellar system of the Milky Way. Add to the distortion related to the light’s origin the fact that on the receiving end, observers are also in linear and rotational motion, via the nature of the Milky Way, the our solar system and the earth itself. While the adapted tracking system used by scientists is designed to guarantee a steady image via long exposure, data collected from a spectrometer does not benefit from a similar treatment. It stands to reason that all of the above factors independently or combined may alter the interpretation of the red shift phenomenon, and one day that may change the understanding of the universe.. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A Big Bang conundrum
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:06:45 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote: .... it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate the long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the popular Big Bang model. How do you reconcile the iron problem, and the necessary loss of entropy? The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it is now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded. What astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it was at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years ago. Not when they are looking at galaxies, they aren't. They are looking on this side of the CMBR curtain. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion- years-old light rays can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from the observer's position within the Milky Way galaxy. Yes, just like any direction around a ball, ends up back at your starting point, perhaps many times. But that doesn't jibe with the expansion time line. Yes, it does. During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the location of the young and small universe. No. The Milky Way moved at a speed of 300 km/sec over most of its history. How far light traveled, and how long the Milky Way aged are two very different things. Now, in the present location, observers are looking back to where the Milky Way came from No, we cannot see ourselves in the past, nor the backs of our heads. Initial inflation prevented that. There is no pattern "left" that matches "right", no matter how far out we look. and seeing light rays from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far, this can still make sense, No, you misunderstanding does not make any sense. Rather than do a blow by blow, correcting your myriad mistakes in logic, let me direct you to a source for the Standard Model, and observations that make the Big Bang the only theory that seems to fit the Universe displayed: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm .... four parts. Also: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...q.html#bestfit .... and: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence David A. Smith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
JK |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A Big Bang conundrum
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Sunday, April 7, 2013 10:39:26 AM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote: .... I think your analyses are a bit hasty, I think you lied when you presented this as a question or conundrum. if you read it again and more thoughtfully the outcome may be different. No, I think you are yet another person who is more interested in your misunderstandings, than in answering the "questions" you raise, about topics you clearly are not interested in researching. David A. Smith |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Jaakko Kurhi |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
A Big Bang conundrum
Dear JAAKKO KURHI:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 5:48:35 PM UTC-7, JAAKKO KURHI wrote: .... The observer cannot see a 13 billion years-old light unless the observer is located 13 billion light-years away from the point the light was emitted. How this event works with the Big-Bang model, where the emitted light and the observer originated from the same young and small universe. The CMBR light was emitted from a nearly fully -ized Universe. Inflation lets you outrun the light. Besides, the light could go round and round a closed Universe. Theoretically, it can work if the Milky-Way as an observer and the emitted light rays traveled near same speed and near parallel paths, until 13 billion years later the Milky-Way is observing these old lights. "Only" way? No, clearly you operate from complete ignorance. You choose to spout, rather than learn. This event is not happening. The Milky-Way travels only 300 km/sec. In the environment of the Big-Bang model, this speed is not enough to reach the position for observing 13 billion years old light rays. "Conundrum", no. Therefore, those observed 13 billion years-old lights are not coming from the small, young and compact universe. So sad you spend time justifying, rather than learning. David A. Smith |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A Big Bang conundrum
On 05/04/2013 11:06 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
A Big Bang conundrum I’ve been interested in theories related to the origin of the universe for quite some time, and have spent hours consuming information on the subject through newspaper clippings, television shows and the wealth of knowledge offered online. I often find presented theories to be flawed, and have trouble reconciling some perceived problems. I’ve collected the topics that I take issue with in this essay and would like to hear your thoughts -- it seems to me that observations of deep space indicate the long-discounted steady-state universe theory makes more sense than the popular Big Bang model. The basic flaw in the Big Bang model of the universe lies in what happened after the universe formed, when it was much smaller than it is now, and contained about 80 billion young galaxies as it expanded. What astronomers see in deep field space is the observable universe as it was at the time when light rays were emitted 13 billion to 14 billion years ago. According to the Big Bang model, 13-billion-years-old light rays can be seen looking in all directions from any point on the globe from the observer’s position within the Milky Way galaxy. But that doesn’t jibe with the expansion time line. During 13 billion years of expansion, the Milky Way galaxy moved 13 billion light years away from the location of the young and small universe. Now, in the present location, observers are looking back to where the Milky Way came from and seeing light rays from galaxies that were also located in that small universe. So far, this can still make sense, as long as the Milky Way was traveling near parallel to the light and at a velocity near the speed of light, just to stay ahead, and 13 billion years later, intercept the somewhat older light beams from the emitting galaxy -- which I’ll call "Galaxy A" for illustrative purposes. What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB. The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded *faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is 224 times the speed of light! After Inflation was over, the expansion slowed down to less than or equal to the speed of light. Any little fluctuations in the density of the universe prior to Inflation got expanded out to huge proportions after Inflation. So this is how large scale structures came into being inside the universe, because per-Inflationary bubbles became too big after Inflation to be affected by anything travelling at the speed of light. Yousuf Khan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Jaakko Kurhi |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A Big Bang conundrum
A Big Bang conundrum
Think of it like this. When the big bang "banged" it did not start from single point. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A Big Bang conundrum
On 12/04/2013 11:48 AM, JAAKKO KURHI wrote:
'Yousuf Khan[_2_ Wrote: What is confusing you is that you're thinking of the simplistic original Big Bang model, rather than the modern Inflationary Big Bang model. What the Inflationary model changes from the original model is that it adds the concept of "Inflation", which creates an overwhelming expansionary energy to the Big Bang, within billionths of a second after the BB. The Inflation energy is so overwhelming that it expanded the Universe out from smaller than an atom to approximately 85 million light-years by the time of the CMB emissions, 380000 years later, meaning it expanded *faster* than the speed of light. That means the universe expanded out to a diameter of 85 million light-years in only 380,000 years, which is 224 times the speed of light! When the Big-Bang model was found to be problematic, instead of scratching off the idea, the patch-up work was done, resulting in a new inflationary model. In this version, the numbers for the workings of this system grew to the level of imaginary events, well beyond logical comprehension. Back to the original model, I am still skeptical about the initial expansion process. In the materialistic world, where behaviors of matter in most forms of application are well experimented and documented for future applications. However, when it comes to applying this knowledge to the Big-Bang model its completely ignored. The reason that the expansion can happen faster than the speed of light is because it is space itself that is expanding, not the stuff in it. The stuff in it just gets carried along with it. The speed of light limit only applies to particles travelling from one point in space to another point, however if the points of space itself are moving there's no such speed limit. The reason the original Big Bang model didn't get scrapped was because it did explain most of the unanswered questions about the observations seen in the universe. For example it explained the leftover Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), and its current temperature of about 2.7 Kelvin. The only thing that it didn't explain perfectly was why the Universe was lumpy. In other words, if the Big Bang happened at or below the speed of light, then the Universe would be just a collection of evenly distributed gas, and there would be no conglomerations of stars and galaxies, because everything would be too even. When they added Inflation into the Big Bang, they could make individual quantum fluctuations in the gas stretch out to large knots and gaps, which can then become stars and galaxies and voids. For the universe that existed as a small entity, that was set to expanding motion by extremely fast explosive force. During the first fraction from the second of this event, there is bound to be a change in order of the density and set the direction for matter to expand. The following may be a most suitable illustration: The imaginary picture of the big-bang universe should resample a Galaxy, having the hollow center and the density of the matter is distributed unevenly, being denser close to the hallow and thinning toward the edge. This is a perfect example for the foot print of the motion set by an explosive action. The shape of a spiral galaxy forms over the course of millions of years, which is pretty fast, but still not fast enough. You won't see that kind of shape form in a split second, the amount of time that the Big Bang happened. Yousuf Khan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dark Matter Conundrum | Ben[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 12 | October 30th 11 05:25 AM |
The Elephant in the Room - is the Big Conundrum... | don findlay | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 17th 08 03:43 AM |
accelerating universe conundrum, help me find my logic flaw please | chas | Misc | 26 | June 18th 08 04:53 PM |
Article - SETI ... and the Aliens Conundrum - Part I | Jason H. | SETI | 11 | August 3rd 06 12:23 AM |
Oh, the conundrum | Eric Martin | Amateur Astronomy | 16 | December 10th 03 03:14 AM |