0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yes, I see this term 'horizon' bandied around quite a lot and though the concept of a (or should that be 'an') horizon is easy enough to grasp, it still has me in a quandary. I know that there is something beyond the detectable horizon and if I move toward the horizon, I will be able to detect it, but the horizon has now moved and there is still something beyond it.I think part of the problem with understanding the terminology of the universe is the inability of language to describe it and, as I have said before, the fact that we and our world are finite.Perhaps I should describe my notion of the universe as being an inverted sphere. Now I must try to get my head around that idea.
It's just something which we don't have enough brain power to understand.
I do not think the universe has an edge. I think it is infinite in size in all directions without looping back on itself.
As a firm believer in empirical study..I went to the end of the universe this morning and this is what I found !...
Quote from: neilep on 18/08/2011 16:18:29As a firm believer in empirical study..I went to the end of the universe this morning and this is what I found !...In a similar vein according to Alan Moore scripting as Tharg (of 2000AD comic fame) the end of the unioverse has "Big George was here" written across it in massive letters...
If it's infinite in size, would that not imply that it was always infinite in size in which case it could not have started with the big bang.
Quote from: MikeS on 24/08/2011 08:10:37If it's infinite in size, would that not imply that it was always infinite in size in which case it could not have started with the big bang.That's not true. The big bang model actually says that if the universe was infinite, it was still infinite at the big bang, but it was also infinitely dense. In other words, if the universe is infinite in size now, you can squeeze it as much as you want so it gets really dense and it will still be infinite in size. You can keep squeezing forever, so it's density increases without bound (towards infinity) and it will still be infinitely large. Here's a reference: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.htmlThis is definitely not intuitive, but we're dealing with an infinitely large universe, so our intuition, which is based on visualizing finite objects, breaks down here. Of course, we don't know if the universe is infinite, but it's one possibility that so far agrees with what we've observed. We haven't ruled out all the other possibilities yet.
This maybe the mainstream view but honestly, to me it sounds more like magic and unicorns mushrooms, or perhaps just desperation.
Quote from: Robro on 23/08/2011 23:54:44I do not think the universe has an edge. I think it is infinite in size in all directions without looping back on itself.But if it's already infinite in size how can it be expanding?If it's infinite in size, would that not imply that it was always infinite in size in which case it could not have started with the big bang.
Well, Mike, my post was to point out that you were misleading someone about what the big bang model allows or doesn't allow. It's pretty clear you don't understand the model, despite the fact that you continually post and tell others why it's wrong. This is your modus operandi on a lot of areas of physics on this forum. If you'd shown any desire to engage in actually learning physics in the past, I'd be more helpful, but you've made it clear that you're here to evangelize, not to learn. So I'll just say that all your objections listed above are answered by realizing that the singularity of the BB need not be a point. The universe can remain infinite in size but grow infinitely in density as you move back in time towards the big bang. The singularity if where the density becomes infinite and the models break down. It may not be comfortable to think of things (energy, size, density) being infinite in the early universe or the modern universe, but the theory is about matching observations, not feeling comfortable.Quote from: MikeS on 24/08/2011 17:55:38This maybe the mainstream view but honestly, to me it sounds more like magic and unicorns mushrooms, or perhaps just desperation.Sure, you're welcome to believe any theory you want. We have an entire new theories section forum for discussing non-mainstream theories. We don't even require that you learn about the reasons why the mainstream theories are so widely accepted before you go promoting an alternative. You're not welcome to continue to mislead other posters by offering bad science in order to trash mainstream theories (and thereby promote your alternatives).
That's just it, no one has proven the Universe is expanding. I can more easily say it is infinite, than to say the Universe has an edge. And no I'm not implying that it could not have started with a big bang, I am stating that I do not think that the big bang ever existed. No one has proven that it did exist.I mean, come on guys and gals, just THINK about it, really THINK. How is it possible to get something out of nothing, no space, no matter, no time, no potential, all this equals NO BIG BANG. No matter how many times you force a math equation on zero, if zero equals zero, you end up with zero. It is so simple.
And to add to my last post. If you only concentrate on things that can be observed in nature, and you interpret your observations to the very best ability of modern science, you will ultimately come to the conclusion that the Universe has no edge.
The big bang idea necessitates an effect without a cause. It throws real science out the door. I mean it's a cool fantasy, bringing in all the added dimensions and special relativity, the needed dark matter and dark energy to make the big bang Universe mostly all work out. But it does not all work out. Every time there is a problem with the big bang theory, a gang of physicists pile onto it and conjure up some new phantom particle or other dimension, or something that nobody can see, to fix it. They stack theories upon theories to keep it on life support. But it is taking it's last gasping breaths before it dies. It is sad that many good scientists stake their reputation on the theory and concept, rather than being able to keep their integrity and move on to better things. They feel that if the big bang dies, they die. So sad it is.
Sorry again, not trying to advance a non mainstream idea, just trying to better understand the current theories. With that I must say that an edge to the Universe has not been detected, Galaxies stretch out as far as the most powerful telescopes can see. I have a suspicion that when telescopes are developed that look into longer and longer wavelengths, we will see the same thing, Galaxies. So, when it is discovered that Galaxies are out there at 20 - 30 billion light years, the BBT will have to be adjusted to fit the observation, again. And what an eyebrow raising adjustment that will be.
And here is another item that confuses me. If red shift is no longer a Doppler observation and it is now an expanding space observation, then space should have expanded everywhere equally in all directions, right. The photons traveling through the expanded medium of space would also take on that expansion, as would every area in space everywhere. So, while we here on Earth are waiting for the photon to arrive, we are expanding at the same rate for billions of years, our ability to detect the expansion has also expanded, so we would detect no red shift since we have expanded equally with the rest of space, right. But I'm sure that the counter for this will be said to be gravity, right? But gravity should pull the expanded photons back to normal as they arrive, there again, no red shift. Because in BBT, when the photons arrive they would have to expand at an even much higher rate to overcome the local gravity field in order to maintain their red shift.
The light leaves Earth-2 and is initially red shifted a little, and then travels 12 billion years. DURING the 12 billion year transfer, Earth-1 undergoes the same amount of expansion as the light did during the transfer, wouldn't this negate the transfer expansion as far as observation is concerned. Upon arrival at Earth-1 the light is blued up and returns to normal, thus no red shift. But red shift is observed, and is more or less determined by the distance from the object. I am wondering how or by what method that it is proven that expansion, if real, is what accounts for this.Question: Is it at all possible for red shift to be caused by something other than expansion? And if so, how would this act as a barrier to hide the far reaches of the Universe, or the edge?