A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question about the Big Bang



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 11th 04, 06:27 PM
Stephen Ward
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Question about the Big Bang

First of all, let me say that I am a Newbie at Astronomy and am probably
missing something very obvious. However, I was wondering if someone
could explain the following.

If we can look in one direction and see an object that existed say 13
billion years ago based on our theories of the speed of light (ie also
13 billion light years away) and then turn in the opposite direction and
look at objects that are 13 billion light years away and 13 billion
light years old, does that not blow the whole concept of the big bang
which tells us that all matter came from a single point (this of course
assumes that light travels in a straight line). Hubble determined that
all objects in the universe are moving away from us and this provided
evidence to this effect. However, we have we not now determined that 13
billion years ago there existed objects that were 26 billion light years
apart in space.

Thanks in advance for any comments.

Cheers

/Steve

  #2  
Old March 11th 04, 07:11 PM
BenignVanilla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stephen Ward" wrote in message
news:5k14c.773912$X%5.690638@pd7tw2no...
First of all, let me say that I am a Newbie at Astronomy and am probably
missing something very obvious. However, I was wondering if someone
could explain the following.

If we can look in one direction and see an object that existed say 13
billion years ago based on our theories of the speed of light (ie also
13 billion light years away) and then turn in the opposite direction and
look at objects that are 13 billion light years away and 13 billion
light years old, does that not blow the whole concept of the big bang
which tells us that all matter came from a single point (this of course
assumes that light travels in a straight line). Hubble determined that
all objects in the universe are moving away from us and this provided
evidence to this effect. However, we have we not now determined that 13
billion years ago there existed objects that were 26 billion light years
apart in space.


It's important to make a differentiation between the Universe and our
Observable Universe. The 13 billion number comes from our ability to see out
that far. That implies that the universe is at a minium of 13 billion years
old, but probably older.

BV.


  #3  
Old March 11th 04, 07:34 PM
Stephen Ward
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

But because we know that light travels in a straight line are we not
also talking about an object that is 13 billion light years away? So we
are determining two things at the same time. First that the age of the
Universe is at least 13 billion years old but also that an object
existed in the direction that we are looking 13 billion light years away
at that time.

Thanks for the response.


BenignVanilla wrote:
"Stephen Ward" wrote in message
news:5k14c.773912$X%5.690638@pd7tw2no...

First of all, let me say that I am a Newbie at Astronomy and am probably
missing something very obvious. However, I was wondering if someone
could explain the following.

If we can look in one direction and see an object that existed say 13
billion years ago based on our theories of the speed of light (ie also
13 billion light years away) and then turn in the opposite direction and
look at objects that are 13 billion light years away and 13 billion
light years old, does that not blow the whole concept of the big bang
which tells us that all matter came from a single point (this of course
assumes that light travels in a straight line). Hubble determined that
all objects in the universe are moving away from us and this provided
evidence to this effect. However, we have we not now determined that 13
billion years ago there existed objects that were 26 billion light years
apart in space.



It's important to make a differentiation between the Universe and our
Observable Universe. The 13 billion number comes from our ability to see out
that far. That implies that the universe is at a minium of 13 billion years
old, but probably older.

BV.



  #4  
Old March 11th 04, 07:45 PM
Ralph Hertle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stephen Ward:

You wrote:

[ clip ]
However, we have we not now determined that 13
billion years ago there existed objects that were 26 billion light years
apart in space.

[ clip ]


It stands to reason that if there were two objects found in opposite
directions that their distance apart is the sum of their distances from
the observer. If you are going to deny basic arithmetic, and its
foundations of multiple existents and logic, then you will have to deny
the validity of all mathematics and all the physics and science that is
based upon mathematical measurement science.

An educated guess would be that the photons that have been thus far
received are 13 billion years old. That does not mean that even older
photons and older spectral or image patterns of photons will not be found.

The term 'educated guess' is due to the fact that scientists do not know
what the substance of matter is, nor have they identified the nature,
properties, and potential relationships of light and gravitational
existents.

If your premise is that a creationist-expansionist BB universe exists,
no older photons will be found.

If your premise is that the existents of the universe exist where they
are, having the properties that they have, and that photon energy levels
decrease with the travels of the photon through space, then older
photons will likely be found.

The BB will have to logically cease to exist when, for example, 30
billion year old photons and spectral patterns are discovered. The
"Apparent Red Shift" would be considerable.

When these things have been discovered, and older photons have been
discovered, the BB will be done for. A continuing plurality of existents
in the universe will have been re-confirmed.

We are at the point of "Either-Or" in science. (Aristotle and Euclid
would be watching in fascination to see how scientists handle the
problems involved regarding the Law of Contradiction and the Parallel
Postulate.)

One more point. Should not science be looking for atomic signature
spectral line patterns and images in the long radio wave region? The
light gathering requirements of spectral instruments necessary to "see
beyond" the epistemological light barrier of the claimed BB would be
enormous. Gaining that type of information would be of great help to
science.

I personally think that the establishment of large spectral and imaging
instruments on the moon is far more important than any procreationists'
goals of populating Mars.

Go beyond.

Ralph Hertle

  #5  
Old March 11th 04, 08:01 PM
Rick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stephen Ward" wrote in message news:5k14c.773912$X%5.690638@pd7tw2no...
First of all, let me say that I am a Newbie at Astronomy and am probably
missing something very obvious. However, I was wondering if someone
could explain the following.

If we can look in one direction and see an object that existed say 13
billion years ago based on our theories of the speed of light (ie also
13 billion light years away) and then turn in the opposite direction and
look at objects that are 13 billion light years away and 13 billion
light years old, does that not blow the whole concept of the big bang
which tells us that all matter came from a single point (this of course
assumes that light travels in a straight line). Hubble determined that
all objects in the universe are moving away from us and this provided
evidence to this effect. However, we have we not now determined that 13
billion years ago there existed objects that were 26 billion light years
apart in space.

Thanks in advance for any comments.


You're stuck in three dimensional thinking, Steve. If you were
sitting on a planet 13 billion light years away from Earth,
you'd look out and see 13 billion light years' worth of stars
and galaxies in every direction, exactly as we do. The
expansion of the universe is not occurring from a three
dimensional "center" but from four dimensional space-TIME.

HERE and NOW are the center, not just HERE. It's really
impossible to conceive of this by using three dimensional
models.

Rick



  #6  
Old March 11th 04, 08:19 PM
Greg Neill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stephen Ward" wrote in message
news:Pi24c.776598$ts4.127580@pd7tw3no...
BenignVanilla wrote:
"Stephen Ward" wrote in message
news:5k14c.773912$X%5.690638@pd7tw2no...

First of all, let me say that I am a Newbie at Astronomy and am probably
missing something very obvious. However, I was wondering if someone
could explain the following.

If we can look in one direction and see an object that existed say 13
billion years ago based on our theories of the speed of light (ie also
13 billion light years away) and then turn in the opposite direction and
look at objects that are 13 billion light years away and 13 billion
light years old, does that not blow the whole concept of the big bang
which tells us that all matter came from a single point (this of course
assumes that light travels in a straight line). Hubble determined that
all objects in the universe are moving away from us and this provided
evidence to this effect. However, we have we not now determined that 13
billion years ago there existed objects that were 26 billion light years
apart in space.



It's important to make a differentiation between the Universe and our
Observable Universe. The 13 billion number comes from our ability to see

out
that far. That implies that the universe is at a minium of 13 billion

years
old, but probably older.

BV.

But because we know that light travels in a straight line are we not
also talking about an object that is 13 billion light years away? So we
are determining two things at the same time. First that the age of the
Universe is at least 13 billion years old but also that an object
existed in the direction that we are looking 13 billion light years away
at that time.

Thanks for the response.


Top posting fixed.

The 13 billion year figure applies to the Universe as a whole.
What we "see" at the limits of our observable portion of it is
the surface of last scattering of the time when the universe had
cooled enough for light and matter to decouple -- when the
universe became transparent. It was much smaller then, and we
can only see a miniscule portion of it now.

When we see an object and put a distance figure to it, keep in
mind that the body has moved further away during the time that
light from it traveled to us. It may even have receded past
our viewing horizon, being carried by the expanding space it
is embedded in at rates faster than the speed of light.

Also keep in mind that the object would have been physically
*much* closer to us when the light was originally emitted.
During the time that the light was traveling to us, the space
it was traveling through was expanding. This has the effect
of stretching the wavelength (red shift) and increasing the
travel time.



  #7  
Old March 11th 04, 08:24 PM
BenignVanilla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stephen Ward" wrote in message
news:Pi24c.776598$ts4.127580@pd7tw3no...
But because we know that light travels in a straight line

snip

I am quickly moving out of my realm of knowledge, but I would disagree that
we know light travels in a straight line. Light is very much affected by
gravity and can be curved over a long distance by large masses.

BV.


  #8  
Old March 11th 04, 09:21 PM
John Zinni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...

The BB will have to logically cease to exist when, for example, 30
billion year old photons and spectral patterns are discovered.


Not if they're discovered 17 billion years from now.


  #9  
Old March 12th 04, 12:45 AM
Al Atzert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Light is very much affected by
gravity and can be curved over a long distance by large masses.

BV.


Bingo! I think we'll find that, in a few years, the current age of the
universe will be revised to a much smaller figure when it is determined that
light has been affected by gravity much more than we realize. As to the
Big Bang, no the universe didn't start that way.

Ash


  #10  
Old March 12th 04, 01:44 AM
Greg Neill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Al Atzert" wrote in message
k.net...
Light is very much affected by
gravity and can be curved over a long distance by large masses.

BV.


Bingo! I think we'll find that, in a few years, the current age of the
universe will be revised to a much smaller figure when it is determined that
light has been affected by gravity much more than we realize. As to the
Big Bang, no the universe didn't start that way.


I'd be more concerned about the dark energy which
seems to overwhelm gravity at large scales.
Shouldn't then the universe look much younger already?

If the universe is of uniform density at very large
scales (which surveys indicate to be the case), then
the average curvature due to gravity should be nil.
Small scale effects, such as those due to small
scale clumpiness (galaxies) are already seen --
gravitational lensing.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
question about the universe... Roger Science 4 March 8th 04 04:45 AM
Big Bang deflates? nightbat Misc 15 January 18th 04 08:11 PM
ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?) Lord Blacklight Astronomy Misc 56 November 21st 03 03:45 PM
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 27 November 7th 03 11:38 AM
Hypothetical astrophysics question Matthew F Funke Astronomy Misc 39 August 11th 03 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.