The Big Bang Theory Wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You said:

I find it very very fascinating that if one were to view the universe from any point in the universe, that it appears to be the center of expansion.

I am merely trying to ascertain what you meant. I don't know why you think my enquiry calls for rudeness.
As for my spelling, it merely shows that I am of English descent not American so I tend to spell more like the English.

You are from England then! I spent two years there near Alconbury. Are you familiar with it? There was so much I enjoyed there in merry olde England. I wish I would have used my time there a little better and spent more time in museums and such. Anyway, imagine a field of rapeseed then and each seeds point of view is that it is in the centre of the field of which it can not see the edge. Now this is boring as is the ocean analogy. Space is different in that it is expanding ever faster over time. So from every point in space it appears to be the center of an expanding universe as things are moving away from it in all directions. The ocean or rapeseed analogy isn't the same. You may not find that very interesting still, but if not we may change the subject to fish and chips. Yummy!!!!!

Originally posted by joe beyser
Two objects traveling in opposite directions at half the speed of light would make the dopler shift such that the electromagnetic waves would not be seen. You can find out more outside your colon after you extract your head.

Where did you get this idea? The relative velocity of the two objects is below the speed of light, so they could certainly observe EM-waves coming from each other.

Originally posted by joe beyser
You are from England then!

No, I am Zambian living in Cape Town. My parents were from England originally and Zambia got its English from England. So for both those reasons I spell more like the English than the Americans.

Anyway, imagine a field of rapeseed then and each seeds point of view is that it is in the centre of the field of which it can not see the edge.
If it can't see the edge it can't know whether or not its in the centre.

Space is different in that it is expanding ever faster over time. So from every point in space it appears to be the center of an expanding universe as things are moving away from it in all directions.
OK, I think I get it now. So basically if you interpret the expansion wrongly and don't realise it is in fact space expanding, you think you are in the centre of the expansion. It still think its trivial, but to each his own.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Where did you get this idea? The relative velocity of the two objects is below the speed of light, so they could certainly observe EM-waves coming from each other.

relative velocity to each other is the speed of light but you would still have em waves from one reaching the other. The frequency would be so low it would be practically invisible. That is why I said dopler shift. If a car traveled fast enough and was emitting sound waves within our audible capability from a loud speaker, we theoretically could not hear it if it was moving away from us fast enough. The speed of light doesn't change regardless of speed of what is emitting it, but the frequency of light does change. Did you mean where did I get the idea of Wolfgang pulling his head out of his arse?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I am Zambian living in Cape Town. My parents were from England originally and Zambia got its English from England. So for both those reasons I spell more like the English than the Americans.

[b]Anyway, imagine a field of rapeseed then and each seeds point of view is that it is in the centre of the field of which it can not see the edge.
If it ...[text shortened]... u think you are in the centre of the expansion. It still think its trivial, but to each his own.[/b]

Exactlyoso!!!! Who can say there is and edge to the universe, and the center may be meaningless. Do you like it in Capetown?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Who can say there is and edge to the universe, and the center may be meaningless.

I believe the universe has to be either infinite or wraps around on itself. I don't think edges are possible.

Do you like it in Capetown?
Yes. I like the weather here much better than Zambia, and the better economy is the main reason I am here.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Where did you get this idea? The relative velocity of the two objects is below the speed of light, so they could certainly observe EM-waves coming from each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe the universe has to be either infinite or wraps around on itself. I don't think edges are possible.

[b]Do you like it in Capetown?
Yes. I like the weather here much better than Zambia, and the better economy is the main reason I am here.[/b]

We have had a lot of people move around in the US because the local economies can be much better in some places. I have seen a lot of people move from their life long homes and families in order to make a living. If the universe wraps around on itself, do you think there is a center?

Originally posted by joe beyser
relative velocity to each other is the speed of light but you would still have em waves from one reaching the other. The frequency would be so low it would be practically invisible. That is why I said dopler shift. If a car traveled fast enough and was emitting sound waves within our audible capability from a loud speaker, we theoretically could not hear ...[text shortened]... does change. Did you mean where did I get the idea of Wolfgang pulling his head out of his arse?

Nope. The relative velocity in this case is 0.8 times the speed of light. You need to adjust for relativistic effects. The relative velocity of two objects moving with respect to an observer at or below the speed of light can never exceed the speed of light in any reference frame. The Doppler shift will be significant in this case, but EM-waves can be transferred just fine.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Nope. The relative velocity in this case is 0.8 times the speed of light. You need to adjust for relativistic effects. The relative velocity of two objects moving with respect to an observer at or below the speed of light can never exceed the speed of light in any reference frame. The Doppler shift will be significant in this case, but EM-waves can be transferred just fine.

My original point was that the visible universe is not expanding at the speed of light or even half. I never thought the em waves would not reach the objects. Just not visible. Now how did you arrive at .8 times the speed of light.

Originally posted by humy
What isn't funny is that you are so totally delusional and arrogant as to think you are actually know better about science than all the scientists here despite the fact that, as all of us know here except you apparently, having no scientific credentials and obviously having much lower IQ.

I am not the arrogant one making out to know better about science than ...[text shortened]... the average scientist here, my intelligence is nothing special.
Compared to you, I'm a genius.

You crack me up. That is really funny. 😀

The Instructor

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Nope. The relative velocity in this case is 0.8 times the speed of light. You need to adjust for relativistic effects. The relative velocity of two objects moving with respect to an observer at or below the speed of light can never exceed the speed of light in any reference frame. The Doppler shift will be significant in this case, but EM-waves can be transferred just fine.

I think that is not quite true. I understand the expansion to be clocking several times the speed of light as we speak and getting faster because of the accelerated expansion that began 6 billion years ago or thereabouts.

I attended a talk at Bell labs given by Alan Guth and was able to ask him a question after his talk, using the figures he gave out, I calculated the universe was expanding at 22 orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light at the beginning, anyway.

He said, and I quote: "you did your arithmetic right" affirming my numbers.

Of course that number slowed down dramatically but has been above the speed of light ever since.

As far as I know there are no relativistic effects because the galaxies that are separating are not moving relative to each other but space is being 'pumped' into the region in between the galaxies, kind of like if they were on two conveyor belts moving in opposite directions with the galaxies sitting on the belts. They are not moving in a relativistic sense, there is just space being generated between them which is not the same thing as the two galaxies simply flying apart through some explosive effect. THAT would put them on a relativistic path. The only thing relativistic I think anyway, is the fact the doppler shift due to the apparent movement.

At least I think that is the way of it. That doppler shift is what keeps us from seeing anything more than about 14 billion light years away. There is stuff past that 14 billion ly mark but it is going too fast away for light to reach us so they will be forever out of the reach of telescopes and in fact the visible universe will get smaller and smaller from the viewpoint of the telescope, that is to say, in the far future there will be less and less for a telescope to see and we are in a position now to see stuff they won't be able to see in another 10 billion years and maybe a trillion years down the road the galaxy, the milky way will be all that telescopes can see and any new life forms becoming intelligent will not be able to figure out the universe because there will be nothing to see, the cosmic background will be such a low temperature nobody could detect it, having red shifted to say 1/10th of a hertz or less, they wouldn't even know there WAS a cosmic background.

We are in the lucky position to be able to see all that at this point in the evolution of the universe. In that sense we are in a special spot and that won't last. For us on our time scale of course but the human race will die out SOMETIME in the future, interstellar space travel or no and we probably will leave clues behind for future scientists to study and to learn from our observations they no longer can see.

How is THAT for a long view🙂

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think that is not quite true. I understand the expansion to be clocking several times the speed of light as we speak and getting faster because of the accelerated expansion that began 6 billion years ago or thereabouts.

I attended a talk at Bell labs given by Alan Guth and was able to ask him a question after his talk, using the figures he gave out, I ...[text shortened]... dy and to learn from our observations they no longer can see.

How is THAT for a long view🙂

Did he tell you why we are in that special spot.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Did he tell you why we are in that special spot.

The Instructor

Its not special. If this is the only planet that can sustain life then it was 100% that life would occur on this planet before any other planet.

Originally posted by MISTER CHESS
Its not special. If this is the only planet that can sustain life then it was 100% that life would occur on this planet before any other planet.

The chance that life does NOT exist elsewhere, even in the solar system, is essentially zero. Life will find a way, as the guy said in Jurassic Park. Jeff Goldblum. Life is not particularly special. Somewhat rare maybe but certainly not special, considering life exists miles underground, in clouds above the troposphere, in bubbling near boiling springs, in boiling springs, 30,000 feet under water. It does that here, it will do that anywhere there is a climate even halfway decent. I have no doubt life will be found elsewhere in our solar system, underground in Mars, deep in an ocean in Europa, some place like that. Those outer moons get energy from extreme tidal forces squeezing and stretching the planet continuously and from radioactives so liquid water is a given for a number of those worlds.