Sciencescience

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 08:06 AM

For "big bang" believers, a few questions.

Taken from another post:

Subject Cosmology. Numbers are approximated and terms colloquilalized.

Standard big bang cosmology places the universe @ 14 billion light years old. According to current beliefs, the universe started as a singularity, an infinitely dense dimensionless ??? It was a non material material.

Then 14 billion years ago, the universe (If I may wax anthropormorphically sarcastic), declared that last nights chili and burritos were especially good, burped and passed gas and whoosh, the big bang or inflation of the universe began.

Now thanks to many of the awesome satellites we have out there, we are seeing light from stars 14 billion light years away! My question is- if the universe was a non material singularity 14 billion years ago- how could those stars get out into space 14 billion light years away to shine the light that is just now reaching earth???

!4 billion years ago there was no "there" out there and no star 14 billion light years out there to shine light just now reaching earth!!!

According to current belief the universe only started cooling down for matter to start coalescing to even begin to form stars 250,000 years after the initial whoosh. Assuming that everything was traveling at the speed of light- it still leaves that matter 13,999,750,000 years travelling at the speed of light short to get where it is now so that light which is 14 billion light years old finally reach us!


Seriously: How can a star be 14 billion light years out in space shining light we are just now witnessing, when 14 billion years ago- the universe did not exist, but was just a dimensionless singularity?

No space, no time, no matter, no nothing.


http://www.universetoday.com/54756/what-is-the-big-bang-theory/

43 replies, 3382 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply For "big bang" believers, a few questions. (Original post)
nolidad Sep 2016 OP
Cold Warrior Sep 2016 #1
nolidad Sep 2016 #6
Cold Warrior Sep 2016 #10
sipow Sep 2016 #15
marmot84 Sep 2016 #19
Manatee Sep 2016 #22
marmot84 Sep 2016 #24
frankt8242 Sep 2016 #2
Strange Luck Sep 2016 #3
nolidad Sep 2016 #7
BuzzClik Sep 2016 #9
nolidad Sep 2016 #13
Mr Happy Sep 2016 #11
nolidad Sep 2016 #14
sipow Sep 2016 #18
Duke Lacrosse Sep 2016 #4
sipow Sep 2016 #5
nolidad Sep 2016 #8
sipow Sep 2016 #12
nolidad Sep 2016 #16
sipow Sep 2016 #17
Strange Luck Sep 2016 #20
sipow Sep 2016 #26
nolidad Sep 2016 #21
sipow Sep 2016 #27
JJ667 Sep 2016 #28
nolidad Sep 2016 #29
JJ667 Sep 2016 #32
id-entity Sep 2016 #40
Manatee Sep 2016 #23
nolidad Sep 2016 #30
Manatee Sep 2016 #31
nolidad Sep 2016 #34
Manatee Sep 2016 #35
nolidad Sep 2016 #37
nolidad Sep 2016 #38
JJ667 Sep 2016 #39
nolidad Sep 2016 #41
Squeek Sep 2016 #25
nolidad Sep 2016 #33
Jaime Lannister Oct 2016 #42
LeeCPTINF Sep 2016 #36
marmot84 Oct 2016 #43

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 08:18 AM

1. A couple of responses

1. The actual oldest light the Hubble has recorded is 13B years old, not 14B unless new data has emerged subsequent to this article.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/oldest-thing-seen-through-space-telescope.htm

The universe is approximately 13.7B years old.

2. Given an expanding universe, the separation between our galaxy and others can occur at greater than the speed of light.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the-universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cold Warrior (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 12:05 PM

6. As I said, I approximated

2. Given an expanding universe, the separation between our galaxy and others can occur at greater than the speed of light.

But if the universe is only expanding at roughly 46 miles/megaparserc- it still doesn't matter.

those distant stars were simply not there 13/14 billion years ago!

Example from how stuff works.

A________________C___________________________________________B

A= Singularity C= time distant galaxies formed B= Current distance (13 billion light years away)

How can that galaxy be at B when at that time the universe was all at A? Even if the universe can expand and objects distance themselves faster than the speed of light, to be very colloquial here, Scotty would really have to juice up the dilithium crystals to get those distant galaxies to travel at warp 1,000,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 01:51 PM

10. I normally don't mind approximations, but

the use of 14B has to be corrected since the universe is "only" 13.7B years old.

That said, your illustration shows the distance from the singularity. Who cares, unless you think Yaweh's special planet has remained here at the singularity, the "centre" of the universe? We're discussing light as seen from the earth. No one is saying that the light originates 13B light years from the singularity point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 03:58 PM

15. You are getting caught in the trap of imagining the universe expanding into space

Space does not exist outside the universe. There is nothing for the universe to expand into.

The singularity is a point in time, not a point in space. At the time of the singularity, all of space exists within it.

To answer your question, the galaxy can be at B when all the universe is in A because at that time B is also within A.

The description of the big bang from the point of view of an outside observer doesn't make any sense. It isn't as if there was one small point in space that explode outward. The big bang happened everywhere simultaneously. (Everywhere meaning everywhere in the dimensions of space in which we exist).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 07:53 PM

19. The visible universe can be bigger than 14 billion light years

because of Einstein's General Relativity.

Space itself expands... it can and does expand faster than the speed of light. The objects we observe at the edge of the universe are currently around 80 billion light years from us. The distance is greater than 14 billion light years because space itself has been expanding during the 13 billion years that the light has been traveling towards us.

The oldest light waves which we are currently able to see come to us now not as light but as microwaves. This is called the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and it is one of the main pillars of our evidence for the Big Bang.

Because of the finite speed of light and the CMB we are able to see back in time to the moment when the universe first cooled enough to become transparent to light. Our understanding of the physics during this period is quite strong and well understood. The universe cooled and became transparent to light (mostly) 500 million years after the big bang.

The CMB represents the deepest time that we are able to detect. If you want to argue that the Big Bang couldn't create "something from nothing" you certainly have an argument but you have to go back to our understanding of what the universe was like before the Planck time when the universe was
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds old. At this time we certainly don't know what happened nor does our physics make good predictions. But because we don't know doesn't mean that God is automatically the answer. There is room for "God" at this time scale but it isn't exclusively the only conceivable answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 21, 2016, 08:03 AM

22. One correction: you added a few too many zeros on the age of the Universe when it became

transparent. It was around 300,000 years old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manatee (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 21, 2016, 11:51 AM

24. Yes

thanks... the zeros are hard to keep track of on that scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 08:51 AM

2. Thec answer is YES..!!!

 

Leonard WILL "knock up" Penny in this seasons episodes..!!!
So...... what ELSE do you need to know...???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 09:21 AM

3. Link from the other thread where you asked about this:

If the Universe is only 14 billion years old, how can we see objects that are now 47 billion light years away?


http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#ct2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 12:21 PM

7. That all well may be true

If we are looking at the far side of the universe and we are at the other side but that is not the case

Example:


A______________________________________C_________________D____________________________B


A= far edge of the universe, B= the opposite far end of the universe C= point of singularity at big bang

D= location of earth.

Now before anyone complains, I know th euniverse has been expanding radially, objects are growing distant in the arc from us etc.etc.etc.

The simple fact isd- that the oldest thing we see is a straight line from us! wherever it is in comparison to us in the expansion of the universe.

If the universe is approx. 14 billion y.o. That means everything was at C at that time and nothing was at A or B to shine light we are seeing to day!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 01:40 PM

9. At the time of the big bang, everything was at point C.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BuzzClik (Reply #9)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 03:42 PM

13. Yes it was!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 01:56 PM

11. A,B and C were at the same point at the beginning. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mr Happy (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 03:42 PM

14. I know that

that is a line showing distance in time from point C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 05:06 PM

18. I think I see where the problem is

When you build your timeline, you are placing the singularity at a point in space and assuming that the universe expanded outwards from that point.

This is how it is often depicted, but it is not correct - nor is it what the theories state.

If this were the case you would expect to see all objects in the universe moving radially away from a central point. This is not what is observed. All objects are moving away from all other objects. Of course, at a relatively small local scale (like within the solar system or galaxy), other forces such as gravity alter motion. But at a large scale (between galaxies), all objects move away from all other objects.

When we look out into the universe we see all of it expanding away from us in all direction. In fact, this is what any observer would see, no matter where they were in the universe. Everything is moving away from you. The further away it is, the faster it is moving.

So the image of the universe moving away from a single point in space is just not correct. All points move away from all other points.

We are at the exact center of the observable universe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 11:13 AM

4. If Italian-Americans are descended from Italians, why are there still Italians?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 11:33 AM

5. The short answer is that things are weird - but it has to do with how the universe expands.

Space itself expands. This means that the distance between two objects can increase without those objects moving.

An analogy for this is to imagine a partially inflated balloon. Put two dots on that balloon. Now inflate that balloon further. The distance between the dots will increase, but the dots did not change position on the surface of the balloon. A similar thing happens in space, albeit in a greater number of dimensions.

The net effect is that even though light travels at a constant speed, there is no fixed relationship between the distance to another star and the time it took light to travel from that star to here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sipow (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 12:38 PM

8. I understand the expansion of space and the relationship of objects.

We may not move but we are carried along so we do travel. Just like a passenger in a car- they may not be moving- but the object they' re in is moving so that makes them move in relationship to space/time.

But you are missing the point.

1. No matter how fast the universe is expanding big bang cosmology places its "birth" at approx 14 billion years ago at a fixed place in space called the singularity.and started its expansion.

2. There was no star 14 billion light years away to shine light back to earth out in space, for space had not expanded that far.

Let us use the balloon example. The totally deflated balloon equals the singularity before the big bang.

1. the balloon starts inflating

2. It expands 1 inch (though radially we will measure from the start point to the same point on the balloon) persecond for 14 seconds. So in 14 seconds the edge of the balloon. in relation to its start point is now 14" away.

3. How can we see the edge of the balloon 14" away if at the same time the balloon was totally deflated?

Same with the universe- how can we view something 14 billion light years away when 14 billion years ago all matter was in the singularity? 14 billion years ago all the universe was in that singularity that had infinite density but no mass. There was nothing 14 billion light years in space to shine back at us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 03:34 PM

12. No - You aren't understanding the details.

Last edited Tue Sep 20, 2016, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

There are a couple problems with the question you ask. You claim the universe is 14 billion years old and that we can see light from stars 14 billion years away. Neither of these statements is quite accurate.

The current measurement of the age of the universe places it at roughly 13.799 billion years old (+/- 21 million years) and the furthest object we have ever seen is the GN-z11 galaxy, which is roughly 13.39 billion light years away.

So no one (other than in your question) is claiming that we can see a star as far away as the age of the universe. We can get within a few hundred million years - which was long enough for stars to form.


First keep in mind there is a difference between the size of the universe and the size of the observable universe.

The size of the observable universe is limited by the age of the universe. It is roughly 13.799 billion light years to the edge. Of course at the far edges of the observable universe we are looking so far back in time that there is nothing more to see.

The size of the actual universe is much greater. Almost certainly there are stars well being 14 billion light years away from us. But we have no way of interacting with those stars as there has not been enough time passed since the start of the universe for their light to reach us.

So the problem of having a star sat on the edge of the universe goes away when you are talking about the observational universe. There are stars just this side of that edge, on the edge, and well beyond the edge. However we can only see those that are far enough within the edge that they could have existed in the early universe and still had time for their light to reach us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sipow (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 04:03 PM

16. You still don't see.

First I declared I was using rough approximations for ease of writing.

The size of the observable universe is limited by the age of the universe. It is roughly 13.799 billion light years across. Of course at the far edges of the observable universe we are looking so far back in time that there is nothing more to see.

If the universes' diameter was only 13.799 billion years across then the universe would only be approx 7 billion years old. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light and if the diameter is 14 b/y then the radius would be 7 b/y (the radius being the point of the singularity)

The size of the actual universe is much greater. Almost certainly there are stars well being 14 billion light years away from us. But we have no way of interacting with those stars as there has not been enough time passed since the start of the universe for their light to reach us.

This is a logical fallacy if one believes in the big bang! Because if the universe is only 13.799 b/y old then at that point in time everything in the universe was all in one location the singularity. Even if we are talking about a star moving in the exact opposite direction in the universe as us: 13.799 billion years ago- it was part of earth and we part of it. 1 second after the big bang we were 372,000 miles apart and so on., so 14 billion light years ago that star was not out in space to shine light to get back to us- it was us!.

No granted this is colloquial terms, but you should get the drift.

1. 14 Billion years ago (approx) the universe was A

2. 1 second after the big bang the universe (radially in all arcs) B____A____C
372,000 miles or 2 light seconds
A being the point of the singularity B being one edge of the universe in a line and C being the other

Things in the universe are not expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light. Under no equation do we see things speeding radially away from each other at speeds faster than 93,000 m/s.

So even under the most generous speeds for expansion- we still do not get past the time problem

According to the belief Galaxies were formed about 4 billion years ago. So there should be3 no star or galaxy in the universe that we cannot see its light. It has had more than enough time from its formation for its light to reach earth, even from the furthermost part of the universe from earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #16)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 04:39 PM

17. You keep trying to describe the concept from the point of view of an outside observer.

That point of view does not exist. That is why you are getting confused by this. The singularity does not expand into space. There is no point outside the singularity. All space and all distance exists within it.


If the universes' diameter was only 13.799 billion years across then the universe would only be approx 7 billion years old. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light and if the diameter is 14 b/y then the radius would be 7 b/y (the radius being the point of the singularity)


This is not correct. The speed of light limits how fast objects can move within the universe. It does in any way limit the size of the universe. It limits how much of the universe we can see.

I misspoke when I said the observable universe was 13.799 billion light years across. I meant to say 13.799 billion light years to the edge.



Things in the universe are not expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light. Under no equation do we see things speeding radially away from each other at speeds faster than 93,000 m/s.


We do see things speeding away from each other a speeds faster than 93,000 miles/s. We see galaxies moving away from each other faster than the speed of light.

This is where the concept of the Hubble Constant comes from. For every megaparsec (3.26 million light years) in distance between objects we see an increase in speed by 142 km/s. If you go out far enough, you can find objects that are moving apart faster than the speed of light. When we look into the far universe in opposite directions, we observe this. The limitation of the speed of light is only a local limitation. You can not find nearby objects travelling this speed, but when they are far enough apart, the expansion of the space in between will cause them to separate faster than the speed of light.



According to the belief Galaxies were formed about 4 billion years ago. So there should be3 no star or galaxy in the universe that we cannot see its light. It has had more than enough time from its formation for its light to reach earth, even from the furthermost part of the universe from earth.


This doesn't make any sense. The first galaxies were formed about 13 billion years ago. The first stars formed earlier than that. What makes you think that they formed only 4 billion years ago? The Earth itself is older than 4 billion years.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sipow (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 20, 2016, 08:37 PM

20. Well written, but:

He believes that everything was created in 6 earth days 6k years ago and science can't be right or the bible is wrong (and some, like op, don't believe there is anything wrong at all in the bible because 'god' wrote it - he couldn't write himself for some reason, he was busy, but he got some ghost writers).

The problem here is someone wants to believe something because if it can be shown one thing isn't right in the bible the beliefs they have held and pushed all their life will collapse. Which isn't like science at all where you are used to ideas/theories/etc being modified with time as you can better measure things, etc.

BTW, you posts made sense to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 21, 2016, 03:22 PM

26. Thanks

I appreciate the explanation and validation.

What drives me crazy about that way of thinking is that I don't even believe that there is all that much incompatible between creationism and science. As long as you allow a bit of flexibility and interpretation. I'm not particularly religious but the whole big bang thing sounds an awful lot like the "let there be light" thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sipow (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 21, 2016, 06:50 AM

21. You hold a different view than astro= phucisists.

This doesn't make any sense. The first galaxies were formed about 13 billion years ago. The first stars formed earlier than that. What makes you think that they formed only 4 billion years ago? The Earth itself is older than 4 billion years.

I erred in my typing. It should have been 4 billion years after teh big bang, but even that is incorrect. It was a few hundred million years after teh big bang.

http://www.space.com/11386-galaxies-formation-big-bang-hubble-telescope.html

http://www.as.utexas.edu/~vbromm/araa.pdf


We do see things speeding away from each other a speeds faster than 93,000 miles/s. We see galaxies moving away from each other faster than the speed of light.

So you are saying that galaxies are moving away from each other in the expansion at speeds faster than 93,000 m/s? Cite?

That point of view does not exist. That is why you are getting confused by this. The singularity does not expand into space. There is no point outside the singularity. All space and all distance exists within it.

Call it what you will, but it still does not negate the fact that approx. 14 billion years ago the universe was a singularity that had no dimensions. Then the big bang occurred and the first matter had dimensions. The first second after the singularity exploded the universe was only 372,000 miles in diameter. (in all directions). So how can that matter also be 13 billion years out in the universe at the same time in order for us to see that light just now? The material that formed that star still had to travel through space and time to get to that distant place to shine th elight we are seeing.

Example. A trip starts in Boston at noon to go cross country. at 1 o'clock the vehicle is in Worcester Mass. (distance traveled through time) it cannot be on the West Coast at the same time.

But according to you and science the universe had a set beginning approx 14 billion years ago. it became a dimensionless singularity to expanding from a set point in space/time. So the matter that formed that distant galaxy we see cannot be travelling through space to get to that distant place and at the distant place 13 billion years ago at the same time. 13 billion years ago the edge of the universe was not almost 14 billion light years away!

One second after the big bang the edge was 186,000 miles away
Two seconds after the big bang it was 372,000 miles from the point where the singularity exploded and started its expansion.

So matter cannot be at the start of the expansion of the universe and 13 billion light years away at the same time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 21, 2016, 03:48 PM

27. How do my thoughts differ from those of astrophysicists?


So you are saying that galaxies are moving away from each other in the expansion at speeds faster than 93,000 m/s? Cite?



Yes I am. I am even saying that they are moving away from each other at speeds faster than light (186,000 miles/sec).

Here are some citations:
http://www.universetoday.com/13808/how-can-galaxies-recede-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-galaxies-faster.html

http://askanastronomer.org/bhc/faq/2015/11/09/is-space-expanding-faster-than-light/

http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring06/komatsu/secure/lecture13.pdf


What I found particularly funny was that even you claim that things in the universe can move away from each other at faster than the speed of light.

The first second after the singularity exploded the universe was only 372,000 miles in diameter. (in all directions).


One second after the big bang the edge was 186,000 miles away
Two seconds after the big bang it was 372,000 miles from the point where the singularity exploded and started its expansion.


So if the universe is an expanding sphere around the singularity, and after one second the edge is 186,000 miles from the singularity, then the distance from one edge to the opposite edge would 372,000 miles after just 1 second. That would mean the edges traveled away from each other at twice the speed of light.

Now that isn't actually what went on - but I find it entertaining that even in your explanation you can't escape the fact that distant objects move away from each other faster than the speed of light.


Here is a question for you to consider - Assume (like you do) that the big bang started from a singular point within our universe, and everything is moving out away from that point. That would mean that the origin point is off in a single direction. Which direction do we need to look to see back towards the big bang?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #21)

Wed Sep 21, 2016, 08:23 PM

28. Cosmic Inflation

There are a couple of things going on here but most of your problem is resolved by inflation. The rate of expansion of the universe is not constant. Very early, well less then the first second after the big bang, there was a period of very rapid inflation. So fast that by the time stars formed, some of them where already nearly 13 billion light years away.

Nearly because space has continued to expand. The distance between the earth and the star has increased over the time the light has been traveling, increasing the distance it had to travel during it's flight. This effect is itself complex because the rate of expansion has varied and there appears to have been a period of time when it was shrinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JJ667 (Reply #28)

Thu Sep 22, 2016, 06:45 AM

29. I agree

Very early, well less then the first second after the big bang, there was a period of very rapid inflation. So fast that by the time stars formed, some of them where already nearly 13 billion light years away.

Yes that is a theory proposed, but everyone knows that requires matter to travel many multiple times faster than the speed of light in th e past by a method that no one has any idea how it could possibly occur.

We have no evidence other than the belief it had to have happened because they know they have a problem with distance and time! You cannot have the universe start at a point in space/time approx 14 billion years ago and have fully formed stars and galaxies shining light at earth that traveled approx 14 billion light years from us.

Remember our galaxy and solar system are moving out in space, and we are not the center of the universe.

Remember if that galaxy is moving away from us and we from it, assuming the optimistic time of 200 million after the big bang for galaxies to form, assuming it is moving radially away from us ( longest distance is a straight line from us in inflation), then that galaxy and our galaxy had to have been moving at approx 32 times the speed of light (or 64 X light speed when combined) in order for that star to shine light that took 13 billion light years to get to us. Remember light does not care about how much distance happens after it leaves the objest and begins its travel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #29)

Thu Sep 22, 2016, 03:26 PM

32. Expansion and curvature of space/time

Yes that is a theory proposed, but everyone knows that requires matter to travel many multiple times faster than the speed of light in th e past by a method that no one has any idea how it could possibly occur.
You are correct that nobody understands the mechanism of inflation yet but it doesn't require movement faster then the speed of light. There is the trivial point that during the inflationary period there was no matter in the conventional sense of the word. The energy density was so high and the universe so hot that not even electrons and protons could exist. More importantly though, inflation isn't movement. It is stretching out the space in between objects without movement.

A planet orbiting a star is actually moving in a straight line, it just appears to be a circle because space itself is curved enough that the straight line eventually takes the planet back to the starting point. In the inflationary period space itself was expanding at a rapid rate independent of the actual movement of anything in space.

We have no evidence other than the belief it had to have happened because they know they have a problem with distance and time!
There is evidence now. When the theory was first proposed it was pure conjecture to cover a gap in the theory and various discrepancies in measurements. Since then evidence has been found. The study of the background microwave radiation is the only one I'm familiar with but there are others.

Because the inflation expanded them, the density and size of variations in the cosmic microwave background caused by quantum fluctuations is tied to inflation and the size of the universe. Observations line up with what inflationary theory proposes.

Remember light does not care about how much distance happens after it leaves the objest and begins its travel.I'm not quite sure what your trying to say here but if you are claiming that light is not subject to space/time then you are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sipow (Reply #17)

Mon Sep 26, 2016, 01:12 AM

40. Outside Architect, the Mathematician

And more precisely, outside Cartesian coordinator:

Einstein and others have tried to formulate physics in terms of General Covariance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_covariance), from the sound view that coordinate systems don't exist a priori.

But contrary to claims, and admitting that Group Theory goes over my head, I still don't think they've succeeded. Physics at large remains dependent from notions of Real Line (and consequently, the highly dubious set theory) and orthogonal coordinate systems in various Euclidean and non-Euclidean forms. So basically, despite the good attempts, the basic view remains that there is a priori box, possibly a box of n-dimensions, and Universe is imagined inside that box of mathematical imagination.

Buckminster Fuller's vision of tetrahedral synergetics, though far from well developed, continues to be perhaps the most radical philosophical challenge to standard approach and the fundamental problem of General Covariance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Wed Sep 21, 2016, 08:39 AM

23. I'll write my incomplete understanding of the Big Bang.

Last edited Wed Sep 21, 2016, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

The Big Bang originated from an unknowable existence, but not from complete nothing, since that would be impossible. Nothing doesn't exist.

Likely the very same physics that created our Universe has created many other universes (nature doesn't make things in ones) or many other island universes are contained in a much larger universe. But all we can know is our 13.8 billion year Universe.

Within a small fraction of a second the singularity expanded many orders of magnitude greater than its original size. I read many different claims on how large the Universe became in this small fraction of a second, but pretty quickly after that the Universe got quite large (space can spread faster than the speed of light), such that, the Universe was far larger in light years across than it was in age. So by the time the stars formed less than a billion years later, the distance between stars could have been many billions of light years apart.

The Universe is still expanding, with most of what is out there far beyond the Earth's horizon, such that, we will never be able to see it (the Universe could be infinite). As the light leaves distant stars, the light travels against an expanding Universe relative to the Earth, so the light waves expand to a greater wave length (red shift) and the light has to travel farther than the distance the star was from Earth when the light left the star.

(I'll invent numbers here) So the star might have been 5 billion light years away from Earth when it left the star, but as the star's light reaches the Earth, the light might have traveled for 12 billion years, so we see the star as 12 billion light years old. Also, while the star's light is traveling towards the Earth, the distance to the star itself is greatly increasing over time. So when the light reaches the Earth the star could be 20 billion light years away, so the light from the star is 12 billion light years old and the star is now 20 billion light years distance when it was only 5 billion light years away when the light left the star. That's why the observable Universe is over 90 billion light years in diameter, even though the farthest stars we see now weren't nearly that far when the light left the star.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manatee (Reply #23)

Thu Sep 22, 2016, 06:55 AM

30. Here is the problem

1. no one can measure the speed which the emptiness of space actually is expanding. That is all theoretical.

2. Physics knows that light is the absolute speed barrier. Nothing has been known to exceed the speed of light.

3. so the light waves expand to a greater wave length (red shift) and the light has to travel farther than the distance the star was from Earth when the light left the star.

So you are saying that even the measurements are invalid because the distance between two points in space is expanding as well as the universe.
Example= Wash .D.C. to Calif. is 3,000 miles (we will use that as an example only). So you leave on a trip for California. But by the time you get there instead of travelling 3,000 miles you had to travel 3050 miles.

I know that stars in a differing radius from us are moving away from us, but then in order to even make any measurement at all, you would need to know its exact point in space at a specific time in order to measure the speed it is moving away from us measured by the distance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #30)

Thu Sep 22, 2016, 10:25 AM

31. Scientists can measure the recession velocity of galaxies by the doppler red shift:



Scientists can also measure distance to galaxies:


The light arrives at the Earth somewhat differently whether the star is receding away from us due to expanding space or due to the star moving away from us through space. They find that it is space itself that is expanding.

Light (or anything else) can't travel through space faster than the speed of light, there is no limit to the speed of space itself.

Measurements are valid, though they need to be clear on what the measurement means. Like when they say the visible Universe is 93 billion light years in diameter, they should be clear, since that can be rather confusing. Sometimes people use the same words but mean different measurements. What they mean concerning the 93 billion light years diameter Universe is that the farthest stars we see are now 46.5 billion light years away. They weren't that far when the light we see now left the star.

If the land between Washington DC and California were expanding as you were traveling to California, you would travel farther than the distance they were apart at the time you left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manatee (Reply #31)

Fri Sep 23, 2016, 06:47 AM

34. Theories with out validation.

They have no idea if space (the empty void through which matter travels) is really expanding. We do know that matter is travelling through the void of space at approx. 43 miles per second (phys.org)

I have even seen theories from PHD's that the galaxies are not moving but space itself which is propelling the galaxies away from each other.

But no matter what we discuss here about distances of the universe it still does not overcome the initial problem:

If the singularity which is the universe (whether grapefruit size or infinitely mass with no dimensions) all the matter of the universe approx. 14 billion years ago was located at that point in space/time. When the big bang and inflation started it started spreading the matter of the universe radially in all directions.

It is physically impossible to have that matter expanding from the center of the universe and also be a fully formed galaxy or star shining light that we are just seeing now that is 13 billion light years away. 13 billion light years ago that matter was just 1 billion light years distant from its starting point in space- the thing we call the big bang!

Matter cannot be 13 billion light years apart at the same time! No matter how esoteric of a formula that happens. We have 0 evidence for that phenomena being able to happen. Nor do we have evidence that matter can travel multiple tim,es the speed of light to get to a point in space so we can see.


Also if we can see that galaxy 13 billion light years away because it shone that light 13 billion years ago. Why can't we look at the light that galaxy shone 8 billion light years ago??? Why do we not point our telescopes at a point in the galaxy where that defined light would have been 8 billion years ago?


Remember according to all the astro physicists, the galaxy we are seeing that light from has not been in that point of space for 13 billion years. It has continually moved! So we should be able to chart the motion of that galaxy throughout the universe! If these theories are valid.

But there are theories that do not require all these secondary and tertiary theories that are untestable and unverifiable to explain the universe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #34)

Fri Sep 23, 2016, 07:16 PM

35. Several people have mentioned the fact the space is expanding

Last edited Fri Sep 23, 2016, 08:03 PM - Edit history (1)

faster than the speed of light a great enough distances. That is consistent with General Relativity. There is no reason for you to arbitrarily disagree with this.

This is what I wrote above:
Within a small fraction of a second the singularity (the so-called singularity might have been infinite, along with our Universe now) expanded many orders of magnitude greater than its original size. I read many different claims on how large the Universe became in this small fraction of a second (or the percentage it expanded), but pretty quickly after that the Universe got quite large (space can spread faster than the speed of light), such that, the Universe was far larger in light years across than it was in age. So by the time the stars formed less than a billion years later, the distance between stars could have been many billions of light years apart.
[/blockquote

So at the time that the first stars started emitting light, there were stars farther apart than 13 billion light years (though, since space was/is expanding while the light from distant stars was/is heading towards the Earth, a star didn't have to be a full13 billion light years from the Earth at the time it left the star to reach us in 13 billion light years). The Universe could very well be infinite, which I like to believe, so there may be no edge to our Universe and there would have been stars at all distances, even when the stars were very young. Regardless, when the stars first formed there where huge distances between most of the stars, far beyond a billion light years.

We know the Earth is moving little relative to space, except mostly for our Solar System's rotation around the Milky Way Galaxy.

One piece of evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which makes a good reference for space. The CMB is the first light emitted when the Universe became transparent at around a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. The CMB is almost uniform in all directions, with the CMB being only slightly hotter relative to the Earth in the direction of the Earth's movement around the Milky Way through the CMB. So the Earth is hardly moving relative to space.

I can't find exact information on this, but I think the redshift relative to the distance of a Galaxies will tell you if it is space that is expanding or it is the Galaxy moving through space. The calculus would take work to figure out the numbers for those with the talent.

You wrote:
Also if we can see that galaxy 13 billion light years away because it shone that light 13 billion years ago. Why can't we look at the light that galaxy shone 8 billion light years ago??? Why do we not point our telescopes at a point in the galaxy where that defined light would have been 8 billion years ago?

Remember according to all the astro physicists, the galaxy we are seeing that light from has not been in that point of space for 13 billion years. It has continually moved! So we should be able to chart the motion of that galaxy throughout the universe! If these theories are valid.
That makes no sense. If someone squirted a stream of water at you from a hose as you both moved relative to each other, the water you would receive at any moment of time would have left the hose when it was only at one position. If you put some dye markers in the water you might be able to track the position of the hose and water through time.

The time frames for the relative movements of galaxies are huge. We don't live long enough to track the movement of individual galaxies.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manatee (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 24, 2016, 06:39 AM

37. Another problem

That makes no sense. If someone squirted a stream of water at you from a hose as you both moved relative to each other, the water you would receive at any moment of time would have left the hose when it was only at one position. If you put some dye markers in the water you might be able to track the position of the hose and water through time.

Physicists keep telling us we are looking back in time when we see light from distant galaxies! As said, when we see light 13 billion light years away, that object moved from that sport where it emitted that light, 13 billion years ago. So why cannot you see light that was emitted 12 billion years ago. We should be able to point the telescop to a point in space and see that light emitted 12 billion years ago.


Within a small fraction of a second the singularity (the so-called singularity might have been infinite, along with our Universe now) expanded many orders of magnitude greater than its original size. I read many different claims on how large the Universe became in this small fraction of a second (or the percentage it expanded), but pretty quickly after that the Universe got quite large (space can spread faster than the speed of light),

Might Have? We now have the singularity(universe) travelling at 14 billion times the speed of light! We now have distance in space relative because an inch in space is not an inch on earth. Space may be expanding its border, but a mile in space does not expand to 2 miles.

Also remember the only reason space is expanding is that everything is traveling along a radius from a central point (the big bang that forced the singularity to expand). that is why objects grow distant. They are traveling a different radius than the other objects. And because everything is travelling omnidirectionally, everything moves away from everything omnidirectionally.

Red shift measures the distance the object moves away from us- not that the distance between the object and us is changing.

Example. If your claim is true and space between 2 objects is expanding and not he objects themselves expanding in distance, you could take a light in space and have it strobe form a fixed point relative to earth (the earth and the strobe not moving) you are proposing that the distance increases! The edge of space may be expanding filling in places it was not before- but an inch does not become two inches.

But with you hypothesizing the universe becoming infinite in mere moments, add an omnipotent God and you have a rough outline of Creation!

There are theories that buttress Creation. They have been rejected by secular science. Not because they have been proven wrong, but rejected.

Remember- everything that you are supporting here, is untestable and unverifiable. Especially ini light of the Reimann curvature of space.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manatee (Reply #35)

Sun Sep 25, 2016, 05:39 PM

38. There are problems with your thinking

I can't find exact information on this, but I think the redshift relative to the distance of a Galaxies will tell you if it is space that is expanding or it is the Galaxy moving through space. The calculus would take work to figure out the numbers for those with the talent.

Space is space it does not move- it is the void that matter travels through! The material universe expands in space. If space moved then we should have a supervoid approx. 28 billion years oimnidirectionally at teh center of the universe!

That makes no sense. If someone squirted a stream of water at you from a hose as you both moved relative to each other, the water you would receive at any moment of time would have left the hose when it was only at one position. If you put some dye markers in the water you might be able to track the position of the hose and water through time.

Your example proves my point! I can look at a stream of water at if I know the speed of the water and mys peed- I can determine which part of the spray occurred at what time for it is a continual stream. Same with light! It travels as both a wave and particel so the continual stream of light should be able to be tracked!

But here is an article about the new problems with the big bang cosmology.



Top 2015 News: Science Confronts Big Bang
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Evidence for Creation › Evidence from Science › Evidence from the Physical Sciences › The Universe Was Created › The Universe Was Created Powerfully

2015 was not kind to Big Bang cosmology. This popular idea holds that the universe began from a small point that exploded, accelerated, slowed, and continues to expand. All the while, random energies organized into atoms, which organized into stars, which generated other elements and coalesced into galaxies—all taking billions of years. In stark contrast, the Bible clearly says God spoke all those atoms, stars, and galaxies into existence out of no pre-existing material in a miraculous creation only several thousand years ago. News from outer space this year confronts those who assume that science backs a Big Bang history, and casts doubt on the suggestion that Genesis 1 should be understood in some way other than actual history.

New Hubble telescope images captured the "Pillars of Creation"—a feature within the Eagle Nebula—in unprecedented detail. The name comes from the belief that new stars are being created there. The Hubble satellite first imaged the nebula in 1995, but took new and improved pictures for the Hubble's 20th anniversary. The gaseous region contains young-looking stars and still-moving shockwave fronts, all of which surprised secular astronomers who expected little activity in an unimaginably ancient outer space.

Hubble's new picture revealed no new stars. In fact, no study has ever shown a single new star forming anywhere in the universe. Stars should be constantly "blinking on" somewhere out there in a Big Bang cosmos. But if God created stars, then we would expect to see basically the same stars He made in the beginning.1

In March 2014, widespread reports of gravitational waves that supposedly confirmed Big Bang cosmology delighted both secular and Christian Big Bang supporters. But the results of a more careful analysis of those observations revealed that mere dust in outer space—not the Big Bang—caused them.2 This Big Bang reversal received none of the global recognition that it deserved.

Scientists this year also discovered a ring of nine galaxies that span across an incredible distance of five billion lightyears. This gargantuan ring of galaxies is just too big for the Big Bang. Secular scientists assume that matter is distributed uniformly throughout space on cosmic scales. Lead author of the report in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Lajos Balázs told Space.com, "If we are right, this structure contradicts the current models of the universe. It was a huge surprise to find something this big—and we still don't quite understand how it came to exist at all."3

A separate study reached a similar conclusion. This one discovered an enormous swath in space that is sparsely populated with galaxies while the rest of the universe has plenty. What about the Big Bang assumption that matter is distributed evenly across space? Like the gargantuan ring of nine galaxies, the relatively few galaxies in this vast region of the viewable sky undermined the Big Bang in 2015.4

That same study threw an indirect wrench into the "smoking gun" for Big Bang: cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), expressed as a temperature of space. A Big Bang would have given all of space virtually the same temperature, but this vast galaxy-poor region is also colder than the rest of the universe.

Finally, scientists developed a new cosmology that counters the Big Bang and models a universe with no beginning and no end. This illustrated that even some secular scientists are not satisfied with the standard models and continue to search for better explanations.5

Observations from 2015 revealed even more problems with already beleaguered Big Bang cosmology. But creation solves these problems. These observations confirm creation by disclosing regions and structures in space as the unique works of an artist instead of formulaic works of a chance explosion.

References

Hebert, J. The Hubble 'Pillars of Creation' Revisited. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org January 19, 2015, accessed December 3, 2015.
Hebert, J. Big Bang Evidence Retracted. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org February 12, 2015, accessed December 3, 2015.
O'Neill, I. Giant Mystery Ring of Galaxies Should Not Exist. Space.com. Posted on space.com August 7, 2015, accessed December 3, 2015. Cited in Hebert, J. Giant Galaxy Ring Shouldn't Exist. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org August 24, 2015, accessed December 3, 2015.
Hebert, J. A Cosmic 'Supervoid' vs. the Big Bang. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org May 7, 2015, accessed December 3, 2015.
Thomas, B. Secular Study: No Big Bang? Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org February 23, 2015, accessed December 3, 2015.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #38)

Sun Sep 25, 2016, 07:52 PM

39. Not as easy as you think

New Hubble telescope images captured the "Pillars of Creation"—a feature within the Eagle Nebula—in unprecedented detail. The name comes from the belief that new stars are being created there. The Hubble satellite first imaged the nebula in 1995, but took new and improved pictures for the Hubble's 20th anniversary. The gaseous region contains young-looking stars and still-moving shockwave fronts, all of which surprised secular astronomers who expected little activity in an unimaginably ancient outer space.Did they not understand what they read? The creationists think scientists where surprised that a star creating region contained young stars and evidence of star creation? Really?

Observations from 2015 revealed even more problems with already beleaguered Big Bang cosmology. But creation solves these problems. These observations confirm creation by disclosing regions and structures in space as the unique works of an artist instead of formulaic works of a chance explosion.This statement demonstrates a basic failure to understand the hurdle creationism must over come.

Science is an exploration of things we don't know. That it turns up things that can't be explained right now is a sign that it is working, not evidence of creation. To serve as evidence of creation there would have to be some evidence that something could not or was not created by a natural process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JJ667 (Reply #39)

Mon Sep 26, 2016, 06:46 AM

41. But the evidences do give strong credence to creation.

Did they not understand what they read? The creationists think scientists where surprised that a star creating region contained young stars and evidence of star creation? Really?

secular scientists were convinced this region of the universe was too old to be a "star factory"

Age of stars are based on their "color" which is an unverified concept.

No one has ever seen a star "born". We have seen stars "die" but never born.


Science is an exploration of things we don't know. That it turns up things that can't be explained right now is a sign that it is working, not evidence of creation. To serve as evidence of creation there would have to be some evidence that something could not or was not created by a natural process.

Absolutely! Science is a wonderful search to find out how creation works.

Well the theories of natural processes that created the universe are filled with massive impossibilities and facts that are unverifiable, untestable, unrepeatable and thus unprovable is a given

Both models of beginnings happened outside of human observation and are beliefs not science. Even how one views the evidences is based on how one was indoctrinated. either the big bang or creation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Wed Sep 21, 2016, 11:57 AM

25. Maybe this will explain it?

How big is the universe?

We can observe only a portion of the entire universe. Because the universe is only about 14 billion years old, light has only had about 14 billion years to travel through it. Therefore, the most distant regions of the universe we can see are about 14 billion light-years away. This is the extent of the "observable universe," but the entire universe is probably much larger. It could even extend infinitely in all directions.


http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/all.php.cat=cosmology


I'm sure that someone in this thread must have pointed that out. It's possible that the universe is way older than approx. 14 billion years, and it's also possible that it's infinitely larger.

So what we're seeing is stars in the observable universe which could have had time to form if the universe is many times older than what we think.

We might even be seeing stars from another universe if one theory is true, that universes are like bubbles placed next to each other.

The possibilities are endless and too awesome to think about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squeek (Reply #25)

Fri Sep 23, 2016, 06:31 AM

33. Herein lies the problem

They have all these possibilities and probabilities and no way to verify them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 6, 2016, 04:30 AM

42. you know, all the science, big bang theory, ect, are not mutually exclusive to beliveing in

creationism either?

the 6k age of the earth some people believe literally from the bible pales in comparison to what has been studied.

and it's not like humanity than, with zero ability to studdy more than stars with the naked eye, would have even been able to comprehend modenr science without the tools...

picture it this way, i'll simplify.. if the creationism belief is that first there was nothing, and then god "poofed" the universe into existance... big bang theory could just be a more sophistacated, science way based theory on how such a "poof" happened. it's a theory of how the universe as we know it came to be, it doesn't negate the concept of God, just makes the "earth is only 6k years old because an ancient text says so" stuff look silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Sep 24, 2016, 01:23 AM

36. Want to really blow your mind?

The farther something is away from us, the fast it appears to be going. The most distant object we can see has an apparent velocity of .94c.

The implications are staggering. Parts of our universe are dropping out of our potential light cone. That means we'll never interact with that piece of the universe again. Someday (about 5 billion years from now), the inflation of the universe will leave the skies darkening - our light cone will be restricted to the Milky Way. Sentients that arise in that time period won't know that there are other galaxies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Thu Oct 6, 2016, 03:19 PM

43. Assuming this is a serious post and not sarcasm

Last edited Sat Oct 8, 2016, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

it shows that you don't actually understand big bang cosmology. I don't mean to appear condescending here - most people don't really understand it.

You might find some of the following references helpful if you are truly interested:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

The most important point is that space itself has expanded since the big bang. We do not know what it means to say that the universe was a "dimensionless singularity". Characterizing it as that shows a misunderstanding. We don't know what happened before the Planck time:

~0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000054 seconds '

The problem is that our current theories of physics break down at that point. We have some ideas but we certainly can't say for certain that we know. Further, we certainly don't say that the universe expanded from a "dimensionless singularity" unless Planck time and Planck scale spacial extent are considered to be this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience