Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
furio

Big Bang and Black Holes

Recommended Posts

what about the discovery of Edwin Hubble that the speed at which a galaxy is moving away from us is directly proportional to the distance to that galaxy, it explains this perfectly, it also explains why the expansion of the universe is accelerating since as the galaxies get further away they must accelerate.

 

these two pieces of evidence make a stong case that space itself is expanding.

 

So, what is the expansion speed of the Universe? Bigger, smaller or equal to the speed of light?

Was that speed always constant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a problem with talking about speed of expansion on such a large scale, from our point of veiw the outer edge of the universe seems to be moving away at about 90% of the speed of light in all directions, how ever if you were on one of these galaxies on the edge and looked at another galaxy the other side the speed would obviously not be 180% of the speed of light, now the no-boundaries principle would explain this away, every galaxy appears to itslef to be in the middle of the universe and the edges are moving away at 0.9c. if this is not true then something very strange is going on since two bodies moving in opposite directions at 0.9c will observe each other to be moving away with 0.994c not 1.8c as you might imagine, as a clearly intelligent fellow im sure you are aware of special relativity. if no boundaries is false then the shape of the universe in spacetime is very strange, with no boundaries its much simpler.

 

hubble's constant may have been diffrent in the past as might the expansion, of this we cant be sure until we get a clearer picture of the early universe.(afaik, work may have been done on this since i last heard, there are projects underway at the moment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
man... the edit button is your friend

finally.. somehting we both can agree on , and i do apologise because somewhere between post 89 and 91 i got really trashed and its not hard tell but in any case since i have no credibility anyways ill just continue on "trolling" :confused:

 

ok, it seems maybe you only watch tv and never look at things in the real world, how a television creates an image is entirely diffrent from how light falling on an object creates an image, why would you think they are at all similar

lol entirely different how? its got everything to do with the point i attempted to make. you see 3 and only 3 colors. else images wouldnt be so easily artificially produced. Do you really think that the same artificial image produced on a television that is acceptable to us is as acceptable to species that have more rods and color cones in their eyeballs?The answer is no, the image will look totally foreign to them.

 

don't want to fight about this, i just wanted to correct you the mistake you made, yet you seem to blindly believe you are correct, then again seeing as you are religious... maybe i should have expected that.

im not religious by any means, its just some things make more sence than others especially when it comes to putting faith into theroy based science that as you said it is fought even among the ones who support and accept the ideas. I dont reject science by no means. its just that there is a difference between actual and theory based science. Actual science is real if you tell me the sun is x distance from earth and that star y is z deg F. i have no problem with that because its observable. however much of the theory based science i mean ,and that has been discussed here requires faith. Not that i reject all theory based science because i dont. I accept probably most scientific explanations of our existance but when you come up with theories based upon other theories based on yet more theories and so forth that that chain on down the line. well it doesnt take a rocket scientist to realize when it goes from sci to sci-fi. And entertaining and perplexing as it may be its not enough to reject generations of tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone care to explain how increasing redshift the further away you look DOESN'T provide strong evidence for an expanding universe?

Hmm, let's see.

1. How do you know the light is shifted to red, and it wasn't red in the first place?

2. The universe is not empty, it's full of gas and dust and other things. Some stuff absorbs different wave lengths.

3. Maybe the speed of light wasn't the same in the early days? There are some theories about the fact that the speed of light is slightly different than it was in the past.

4. Another theory says that maybe the time wasn't the same in the earlier days.

5. Maybe the light gets distoreted by the gravity of all those galaxies and starts and whatever else is between us and the light of those very distant galaxies.

 

 

i will counter these as best i can.

 

1. the light from stars in our galaxy has a spectographic signature, if you plot wavelength against intensity you will see a pattern, the pattern varies for diffrent stars and is based entirly on their composition. in light from stars in distant galaxies we see the same patterns just shifted to a higher wavelength, since we expect those stars to be made up as the same stuff as nearby stars then we would expect the same signature spectrum that we get, the fact it is redshifted means it must have happened along the way.

 

2. if dust along the way was absorbing certain wavelengths then this would alter the signature i mentioned above, the fact its exactly the same just shifted implies that no one wavelength has been absorbed more than any other along the way.

 

3. this is something that we will need more evidence to confirm/dismiss there may be some theory saying it could be true but i think if it was something would have shown up in the WMAP or KOBE images of the early universe.

 

4. light does not depend on time as einstien postulated and then based upon that made countless testable predictions that have all now been tested and confirmed, a massless particle(like the photon) must travel at the speed of light with reference to all frames and since diffrent frames have diffrent rates of passage of time, light is independent of time.

 

5. if you look at light from certain galaxies the light from there to here has not come close to any galaxies along the way, certainly not close enough to be affected. if this was the case the effect would be so much more varied and would not fit such a simple equation as v=Hs, and so many galaxies have been observed that fit this, i can't imagine fluctuations in the density of space could be to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there is a problem with talking about speed of expansion on such a large scale, from our point of veiw the outer edge of the universe seems to be moving away at about 90% of the speed of light in all directions, how ever if you were on one of these galaxies on the edge and looked at another galaxy the other side the speed would obviously not be 180% of the speed of light, now the no-boundaries principle would explain this away, every galaxy appears to itslef to be in the middle of the universe and the edges are moving away at 0.9c. if this is not true then something very strange is going on since two bodies moving in opposite directions at 0.9c will observe each other to be moving away with 0.994c not 1.8c as you might imagine, as a clearly intelligent fellow im sure you are aware of special relativity. if no boundaries is false then the shape of the universe in spacetime is very strange, with no boundaries its much simpler.

 

hubble's constant may have been diffrent in the past as might the expansion, of this we cant be sure until we get a clearer picture of the early universe.(afaik, work may have been done on this since i last heard, there are projects underway at the moment)

 

Ok, this is good, now let me ask you a simple question.

If the stars at the border of the unvierse put out light (as any star does), then this light will move out of the Universe, because the Universe does not expand fast enough. As you know, the light speed is absolute, so the speed of light is still 300K KMH regardless of the speed of the star.

So then where does this light go? Does it stop abruptly at the end of the universe? Is it bounced back? Does it just dissapear? What happens to it?

This question is very interesting because the Big Bang guys think that space itself is expanding. So then this light would soon arrive at the very end of space, where there is no further place to go. Doesn't make sense to me.

 

1. the light from stars in our galaxy has a spectographic signature, if you plot wavelength against intensity you will see a pattern, the pattern varies for diffrent stars and is based entirly on their composition. in light from stars in distant galaxies we see the same patterns just shifted to a higher wavelength, since we expect those stars to be made up as the same stuff as nearby stars then we would expect the same signature spectrum that we get, the fact it is redshifted means it must have happened along the way.

Yes, and this is a big mistake, IMHO. We don't know what the distant galaxies are made out of. It is quite possible that, being so old, they are made out of different stuff than the nearby stars. Another issue is with the fact that we assume the fabric of the Universe to be homogeneous, that all the physic laws are the same all over. This is, IMHO, a dangerous assumption.

 

 

2. if dust along the way was absorbing certain wavelengths then this would alter the signature i mentioned above, the fact its exactly the same just shifted implies that no one wavelength has been absorbed more than any other along the way.

Again, we are assuming that the distant stars are made out of the same stuff as the nearby stars.

 

3. this is something that we will need more evidence to confirm/dismiss there may be some theory saying it could be true but i think if it was something would have shown up in the WMAP or KOBE images of the early universe.

Like, say, the red shift? ;)

 

4. light does not depend on time as einstien postulated and then based upon that made countless testable predictions that have all now been tested and confirmed, a massless particle(like the photon) must travel at the speed of light with reference to all frames and since diffrent frames have diffrent rates of passage of time, light is independent of time.

Speed, by definition, is v=d/t. If t changes, so does v. Here is an interesting article about it: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/...ntist-says.html

 

5. if you look at light from certain galaxies the light from there to here has not come close to any galaxies along the way, certainly not close enough to be affected. if this was the case the effect would be so much more varied and would not fit such a simple equation as v=Hs, and so many galaxies have been observed that fit this, i can't imagine fluctuations in the density of space could be to blame.

There can be black holes that do that, or the dark matter (although I don't believe in that), and so on. Those things can not be directly observed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read the whole thread, as time constraint limits me from reading 6 pages quick enough (lack of home access, I'm in a flippin' library to read this thread... ), so I am just responding to my own gleanings while skimming:

 

1.) Can you prove or disprove the existence of a "Creator"? Is there some experiment that will yield a 100% result, similar to Gideon's "fleece"?

 

I personally am a Creationist, leaning ID - meaning, I believe that God created it all, and I allow that God could have used evolution as his method (though I still doubt there's that much merit to evolution). As a Christian, yes, I subscribe to the Judeo-Christian God, and what I have learned in science and math suggests to me that, indeed, it can't have been happenstance - it didn't all just happen. The odds are against life happening even as simple organisms - even more against "intelligent" life, such as us beings pecking on our keyboards, trying to reason this debate with each other.

 

I sit here, facing a computer, pecking away at a keyboard... the computer in front of me says "Gateway". I can believe that the computer somehow was built by it's manufacturer and was then sent here, so that people like me can use it. I know that someone didn't just leave plastic and metal here, and the computer formed itself over many years... why is this an idea people accect for ourselves? Are we not more complex than the greatest machines that WE made? Or are we really trying to reduce ourselves to some primordial goo that just happened, rather than allow that we are indeed special creations of a Creator God, created to be stewards of the world we were created into?

 

I didn't mean to go in a tangent, but still... I'm irked. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for not replying sooner im currently revising for exams, i dont have enough time now to write out a proper response but i thought i would just bring something up i read a couple of months ago.

 

quantum theory says that if something is unobservable then its state is not defined, im sure everyone is familiar with the famous schroedinger's cat idea, if not a quick googling will reveal all. of course in this case we can be fairly certain that the cat itslef would collapse the delicate quantum effect. what if all the atoms and molecules required to make life were somehow trapped inside a special type of crystal formation that produced this quantum effect, all the 'ingredients' were there in the oceans and crystals that could concievably create this effect were known to exist there also. since the molecules would be in every possible combination at once life would instantly be created and this could have collapse the effect leaving the molecules in that configuration, it may not have happened as perfectly as this but this effect could certainly has increased the chances of life forming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im by no means a scientist , nor a layman but here is what I ''think'' about the universe and what it is. I doubt anyone will like what I say because it isnt backed up by Scientific names or well know theorys but hey ho, its just an opinion.

 

I ''think'' that the Universe is a great thought, but something that is constantly changing depending on who is looking at it.

 

It changes itself depending on the level of understanding capable by the observer. If the observer believes there are limits and boundarys, then there are limits and boundarys because the Universe is at once everything that you can possibly concieve within your own thoughts.

 

The universe does not model itself on any of mankinds conditions of time. Time is not something the Universe adheres to in the sense that we do. Time is something we have come to accept so as to be able to better understand our place in the Universe, not vice versa. The universe does not need mankinds version of time, it has its own.

 

I dont believe that the Universe time is linear, goes constantly forward, and so I dont believe that the thing we call light in the universe is linear either, going only constantly forward. WHich way is forward ??

 

I believe the Universe is much like a reflection of ourselves, it will uphold all the laws and theorys you wish to project onto it until another theory can disprove the previous one. And like I said before, if you believe in your universe there are boundarys and limits, then in your universe there are boundarys and limits.

 

Im going to come back and stick in a few pictures if i can find the right website, will do this in *edit* just to put some of our thoughts into perspective :confused:

 

*edit* too many pictures to add in this page so ive included the link instead, just makes you ''think'' a little bit about the size of our intellect compared to the universe

 

http://jordanmaxwell.com/articles/pictures/pictures2.html

Edited by Ateh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that site has some cool/funny pics

 

i like your idea Ateh, you seem to have reached a point of understanding where the universe is both completely independent of humans and yet our observations are completely dependent on ourselves. it could be this conflict that produces things like the quantum/xeno effect, this effect seems very real but goes against any reason or logic we posses. its going to be thinking outside that box that provides the answers in the end, if indeed there are any answers.

 

on another note did anyone see on the news of that nasa probe that has just landed on mars and is looking for signs of life, it would be nice if they found something and add a lot of weight to the theory of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quantum theory says that if something is unobservable then its state is not defined, im sure everyone is familiar with the famous schroedinger's cat idea[...]

 

One problem though.

This only applies to quantum objects (mainly subatomic particles). It does not apply for normal size objects. So life couldn't have started that way.

on another note did anyone see on the news of that nasa probe that has just landed on mars and is looking for signs of life, it would be nice if they found something and add a lot of weight to the theory of evolution.

I think you mean the "origins of life' theory, not "evolution". But even so, I fail to understand how such a discovery would add any more credibility to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, doesnt science prove that the universe is in fact expanding?

 

and maybe the light just hits the back of the universe and is absorbed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i understand it the universe can be pictured as a balloon that is expanding. Galaxies aren't really moving away from us but the distance is increasing.So light can travel all over of the surface of the balloon, won't be bounced or or absorbed. In this sense, the universe is self-contained. It needs neither a center to expand away from nor empty space on the outside (wherever that is) to expand into. When it expands, it does not claim previously unoccupied space from its surroundings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what kylara said is very much what scientists think is what is happening and although some are now doubting the intracasies(spelling?) i think the gist of it is on the right lines.

 

entropy believes in ID and has argued better than anyone ive met before, someone posted a link in here with a list of problems that suggest the earth is very young and some other rubbish, that is what i expect from creationists, entropy's arguments have been far more sound and convincing i respect him for that and am starting to understand how at least he can believe something that to me seems so preposturous , however i can never agree and will always believe in what ive come to know as evidence and fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a firm believer in ID, and I am aware of the scale of the universe.

But so far, there is no experimental evidence that molecules can combine themselves in ways to create life (except if done by another living cell, or a virus, or some intelligence).

It takes a LOT of factors to converge in order for life to be created. And then, even if life is created, it takes a lot of luck for that first cell to have time to reproduce before it is destroyed by the free oxygen in the air, or by the UV light, or before it dies of starvation, and so on.

 

Since you are a scientists, how many atoms must combine to create the most primitive life form capable of reproduction and metabolism?

 

I have been away from this thread, you know exams...and still a lot to revise. However i'd like to answer to this point.

 

There is experimental evidence that in a primordial atmosphere made of methane, carbon dioxyde, ammonia and no oxygen (it was a pollution product of blue algae, proved by geological findings), coupled with radiation and electricity you can easily have the basic building blocks of life: lipids, carbohydrates, aminoacids, nitrogen basis.

 

First, talking about the chance of atoms to mix, is not correct. You have molecules to start with and an enviroment to consider. Still the chances are near the impossible if you want life to be assembled from its components in a single step. It's like saying that falling down a staircase is as probable as falling down each stair-step separately...actually if you fall down the first stair-step, the probability of reaching the bottom of the staircase is alomost 1, because each subsequent probability is strongly increased by the previous event...events arent not indipendent, to say it mathematically.

 

Second, you dont need a metabolism when the environment around you is so unstable to create the organic matter you need to fuel your reproduction. You dont even need a cell. You simply need a molecule capable of reproducing itself to start. This molecule exists and it is RNA (some particular RNA to be precise) which has the enzymatic activity required to act as an enzyme...not a very efficient one, but still working.

 

Couple togheter both the above arguments and the chance of life being created shrinks a lot, in the realm of probable at least. Theories about origin of life are (simplifying a bit) trying to find the initial conditions of a chaotic system. It is a difficult task, many problems arise, from the instability of molecules to difficulties in polymerization reactions...still at this stage, more convincing than a divine intervent (imo). Life is chemistry, nothing more than a wonderful use of those laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a firm believer in ID, and I am aware of the scale of the universe.

But so far, there is no experimental evidence that molecules can combine themselves in ways to create life (except if done by another living cell, or a virus, or some intelligence).

It takes a LOT of factors to converge in order for life to be created. And then, even if life is created, it takes a lot of luck for that first cell to have time to reproduce before it is destroyed by the free oxygen in the air, or by the UV light, or before it dies of starvation, and so on.

 

Since you are a scientists, how many atoms must combine to create the most primitive life form capable of reproduction and metabolism?

 

I have been away from this thread, you know exams...and still a lot to revise. However i'd like to answer to this point.

 

There is experimental evidence that in a primordial atmosphere made of methane, carbon dioxyde, ammonia and no oxygen (it was a pollution product of blue algae, proved by geological findings), coupled with radiation and electricity you can easily have the basic building blocks of life: lipids, carbohydrates, aminoacids, nitrogen basis.

 

First, talking about the chance of atoms to mix, is not correct. You have molecules to start with and an enviroment to consider. Still the chances are near the impossible if you want life to be assembled from its components in a single step. It's like saying that falling down a staircase is as probable as falling down each stair-step separately...actually if you fall down the first stair-step, the probability of reaching the bottom of the staircase is alomost 1, because each subsequent probability is strongly increased by the previous event...events arent not indipendent, to say it mathematically.

 

Second, you dont need a metabolism when the environment around you is so unstable to create the organic matter you need to fuel your reproduction. You dont even need a cell. You simply need a molecule capable of reproducing itself to start. This molecule exists and it is RNA (some particular RNA to be precise) which has the enzymatic activity required to act as an enzyme...not a very efficient one, but still working.

 

Couple togheter both the above arguments and the chance of life being created shrinks a lot, in the realm of probable at least. Theories about origin of life are (simplifying a bit) trying to find the initial conditions of a chaotic system. It is a difficult task, many problems arise, from the instability of molecules to difficulties in polymerization reactions...still at this stage, more convincing than a divine intervent (imo). Life is chemistry, nothing more than a wonderful use of those laws.

 

I have to agree with Fedora here, there are experiments to prove this:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice In this experiment an RNA chain up to 700 bases long was made, with other science that says the chain may be able to self replicate.

 

and

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m120...161/ai_84804464

 

This is also an interesting read:

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So entropy, do you believe the theory that the universe has always existed?

 

No, I believe that it was created by God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So entropy, do you believe the theory that the universe has always existed?

 

No, I believe that it was created by God.

 

in my RVE class we were talking about this, and the teachr said there are many theories.

God, Big Bang, It has always existed and another thoery that it was created ~6000 years ago.

 

I may not be very religous but i have to believe in the Big bang theory which raises another question, if there was nothing to begin with, what exploded and make a big bang? that takes me to belive in the other theory that it wasn't created or "big banged" but it was simply just there to begin with. Everyone has different theories on how it was created and i respect that the only hard thing is prooving it. So far nothing can be proved to how the universe started but i have a theory on how humans came to earth.

 

While i was watching a TV on some channel that i can't remember (possibly discovery) i saw a scientist testing different muscles from humans and apes. While looking at the cells under a microscope he noticed something strange about the jaw mussles. the apes mussles were 3x bigger and the skull shape was different becuase the mussles were much bigger, which means they have smaller brains.

 

Now, this next part is weird. There was a genetic mutation of some sort which caused the apes jaw mussles to be smaller, allowing the skull to grow bigger. With more space in the skull the brain began to grow and the apes/human got smarter which allowed him to build fires and other simply tasks. Over the course of millions of years the humans that they evolved into started to speak very very limited english with just simple words to say. And that is the persons theory on how humans are here, on earth today.

Edited by furio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×