|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Ward" wrote in message news:5k14c.773912$X%5.690638@pd7tw2no... First of all, let me say that I am a Newbie at Astronomy and am probably missing something very obvious. However, I was wondering if someone could explain the following. If we can look in one direction and see an object that existed say 13 billion years ago based on our theories of the speed of light (ie also 13 billion light years away) and then turn in the opposite direction and look at objects that are 13 billion light years away and 13 billion light years old, does that not blow the whole concept of the big bang which tells us that all matter came from a single point (this of course assumes that light travels in a straight line). Hubble determined that all objects in the universe are moving away from us and this provided evidence to this effect. However, we have we not now determined that 13 billion years ago there existed objects that were 26 billion light years apart in space. It's important to make a differentiation between the Universe and our Observable Universe. The 13 billion number comes from our ability to see out that far. That implies that the universe is at a minium of 13 billion years old, but probably older. BV. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
But because we know that light travels in a straight line are we not
also talking about an object that is 13 billion light years away? So we are determining two things at the same time. First that the age of the Universe is at least 13 billion years old but also that an object existed in the direction that we are looking 13 billion light years away at that time. Thanks for the response. BenignVanilla wrote: "Stephen Ward" wrote in message news:5k14c.773912$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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Ward" wrote in message news:5k14c.773912$X%5.690638@pd7tw2no...
First of all, let me say that I am a Newbie at Astronomy and am probably missing something very obvious. However, I was wondering if someone could explain the following. If we can look in one direction and see an object that existed say 13 billion years ago based on our theories of the speed of light (ie also 13 billion light years away) and then turn in the opposite direction and look at objects that are 13 billion light years away and 13 billion light years old, does that not blow the whole concept of the big bang which tells us that all matter came from a single point (this of course assumes that light travels in a straight line). Hubble determined that all objects in the universe are moving away from us and this provided evidence to this effect. However, we have we not now determined that 13 billion years ago there existed objects that were 26 billion light years apart in space. Thanks in advance for any comments. You're stuck in three dimensional thinking, Steve. If you were sitting on a planet 13 billion light years away from Earth, you'd look out and see 13 billion light years' worth of stars and galaxies in every direction, exactly as we do. The expansion of the universe is not occurring from a three dimensional "center" but from four dimensional space-TIME. HERE and NOW are the center, not just HERE. It's really impossible to conceive of this by using three dimensional models. Rick |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Ward" wrote in message news:Pi24c.776598$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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
question about the universe... | Roger | Science | 4 | March 8th 04 03:45 AM |
Big Bang deflates? | nightbat | Misc | 15 | January 18th 04 07:11 PM |
ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?) | Lord Blacklight | Astronomy Misc | 56 | November 21st 03 02:45 PM |
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 27 | November 7th 03 10:38 AM |
Hypothetical astrophysics question | Matthew F Funke | Astronomy Misc | 39 | August 11th 03 03:21 AM |