The edge of space

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
...
on the topic of purposeful distraction, I have still yet to see even a weak gesture towards an answer to my questions of "Where was all the mass/matter, and how long was it there, before it bacame the universe?". That must be accounted for if you're going to say that the universe "began".
...
Good point. I said something similar, because it is inherently obvious. There's massive common sense "evidence" to dispute a single universal big bang. If you crunch the numbers with an open mind and enough common sense the big bang is laughable. Unfortunately common sense (or even intellect) are not requisites in university, what is requisite is that people learn and agree with all the mumbojumbo and fashion spouted by every scientist previous. And there are penalties in terms of reputation and funding for anyone daring to put common sense and intellect first and the mumbo second.

Thatoneguy said:
I believe Hawking and Sagan both agreed that space is like a 3 dimensional mobius strip. Head in any direction for long enough, and you will end up back where you started, provided you moved in a straight line and didn't bump in to any stars.
...
And Einstein also had something to say about space being curved too if I remember. All three of those are reasonably smart guys. ;)

So Occam's razor suits me too, it is quite a simple theory that if something (even light?) travelling far enough would be affected by the curved space. Some symptom looking like doppler shift from very far light would be understandable, or even expected.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,141
Goes back to ignoring evidence that you don't want to fit. There are a lot of people looking for the mass of the universe full time. Right now we don't have all the answers. We have some of the answers (which is what steve was explaining), and pretending they don't exist hinders, not helps. The concept of antimatter could not have existed 150 years ago, as did the concept of black holes. Now we have examples of both, in the lab and out in space. Fact is, we know a lot more than we did 50, or 25 years ago. Simply rejecting everything because some of the current theories may be wrong is major anti-science.

I've seen pictures of the expansion of the universe, red shift data and all. I choose to take it at face value. Our furthest picture reaches out about 6 billion years last I heard, and guess what, the galaxies were different then. There were no heavy elements, this strongly implies a beginning.

We are still going through the data Hubble brought home. We'll be doing that for several more decades.

I miss our space program. I hope it comes back, but there is a chance it is gone forever for the United States.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,226
Bill I hear you, but don't forget it works both ways. The "scientific community" is always coming up with theories and then seeking out "evidence" that supports them.
case in point: evolution. How long have they been looking for the "missing link"? this is completely contrary to the scientific method; you don't come up with a theory, and then look for the evidence to support it. Do you think that the people who are looking for the missing link are also looking for evidence that disproves evolution?
IMO That's exactly whats going here with the big bang theory. They're looking for evidence to prove it, and if they found any to the contrary, they would either discard it in silence (or openly roast whovever published it) or twist it to fit their theories.
So you say I'm ignoring the evidence that I don't want to fit, I say they're forcing evidence to fit where it may or may not belong (using the word "evidence" very liberally) and seeking only evidence that supports their theories.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,141
You truely have it backwards. Yes, occasionally the old men have to die off for a new theory to gain traction, as with tectonic plates, but in general all it takes is one ackward fact to go back to the drawing board. You are referring to something called dogma, which is not science. The competition among the theoriest for creation of the universe is extremely intense, if a new theory comes out it is tested pretty well.

About the galaxies, this is not make believe, the further you go back in time the fewer heavy elements there are. This has a lot to do with supernovas, the creater of all heavy elements. There weren't any in the beginning, but as the universe aged more and more were born.
 
Last edited:

MvGulik

Joined Nov 3, 2011
41
Neither is there any data to support expansion. ...
Thanks for confirming my suspicions about you.

@General:
Anyone that knows a little about general science would know that there is no definite proof for anything ... Other than when a experiment/data proofs a theory wrong or flawed(incomplete). Anyone abusing or using this principle in reverse is ... well ... generally having some personal and special agenda. (Got already one of those in my family, and that's more than enough for me.)

... bottomless pits ...
 

ross

Joined Jul 30, 2010
46
Goes back to ignoring evidence that you don't want to fit. There are a lot of people looking for the mass of the universe full time. Right now we don't have all the answers. We have some of the answers (which is what steve was explaining), and pretending they don't exist hinders, not helps. The concept of antimatter could not have existed 150 years ago, as did the concept of black holes. Now we have examples of both, in the lab and out in space. Fact is, we know a lot more than we did 50, or 25 years ago. Simply rejecting everything because some of the current theories may be wrong is major anti-science.

I've seen pictures of the expansion of the universe, red shift data and all. I choose to take it at face value. Our furthest picture reaches out about 6 billion years last I heard, and guess what, the galaxies were different then. There were no heavy elements, this strongly implies a beginning.

We are still going through the data Hubble brought home. We'll be doing that for several more decades.

I miss our space program. I hope it comes back, but there is a chance it is gone forever for the United States.
the Max Plank Institute has just found significantly more heavy chemicals(than we have in our sun) in a galaxy 12 billion light years away!
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,226
Thanks for confirming my suspicions about you.

@General:
Anyone that knows a little about general science would know that there is no definite proof for anything ... Other than when a experiment/data proofs a theory wrong or flawed(incomplete). Anyone abusing or using this principle in reverse is ... well ... generally having some personal and special agenda. (Got already one of those in my family, and that's more than enough for me.)

... bottomless pits ...
yes I did a bit of reading and the scientific method does place the hypothesis before the gathering of data and experimentation. I feel pretty stupid now, as I have been arguing that the hypothesis should only come at the end. What's worse is that by my previous ideas, the gathering of data and hypothesis would never occur, as there would be no reason for it ever happening; why go out and gather data if there's no hypothesis to prove or disprove? yeah, pretty stupid. thanks for clearing that up.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,141
the Max Plank Institute has just found significantly more heavy chemicals(than we have in our sun) in a galaxy 12 billion light years away!
Actually 6 billion is the limit to date that I am aware of.

Your source? Scientific source, not opinion.

Gentlemen, keep it civil. No personal comments.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,141
OK, a quick search showed me a galaxy that is 9.3 Billion years distant. It was observable through gravitational lensing, and showed the presence of oxygen. Supernova create elements all the way to iron, and after that other mechanisms get involved according to current theory.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-nature-magnifying-glass-views-eary.html

A few other articles that pertain...

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-galaxies-born-earlier-video.html

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/28/

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/28/image/a/

OK, this is a link to at galaxy 13.7 billion years away.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/farthest-galaxy.html

And then the rebuttal :rolleyes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/26/oldest-galaxy-ever-report_n_814391.html

The question "How elements are formed got into the other picture"

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/editpost.php?do=updatepost&postid=418071

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/supernovae.php

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/nucsyn.html

Of course, Wikipedia provides quite a few links for those who are truly interested.

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

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

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

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

The fact is, there is an astounding amount of evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory. There are also other theories out there, but all of them have flaws. The big bang theory has the fewest flaws at this time

And if you do your reading, you will find the earliest galaxies did not have the quantities of heavy elements that exist today.
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,141
Actually I wasn't. Read some of the other posts. So far it has kept within bounds, but it is getting pretty heated.

It is possible to argue a point civilly.

When we discuss this many things are known, we are looking at the big picture, which isn't clear yet.

Fact: just a little over 13 billion years ago there was a fog (I've seen it referred to as the hydrogen fog) that was apparently cleared by stellar action (best guess). Does this sound like a steady state universe?

There is a lot of reading involved, but I've been following these developments most of my life, being a science junkie.

There are other models, but so far all I've seen is denial, not the proposition of other ideas. Denial doesn't work, it is negative without contributing. As I've said, BB has the fewest holes IMO.

No one has even mentioned the back ground radiation, another strong argument for BB.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,226
I feel like an athiest who just walked into a southern baptist church and asked to see proof of God.
Fact: just a little over 13 billion years ago there was a fog (I've seen it referred to as the hydrogen fog) that was apparently cleared by stellar action (best guess). Does this sound like a steady state universe?
Man I really get hung up on these "facts" about things that happened billions of years ago, and how "rewinding time" is evidence of anything. How could one possibly prove anything that happened 13 billion years ago?

For one thing the expansion can be played in reverse, and has been, leading to the big bang theory ... They think they have gotten it down to a few milliseconds after the big bang, maybe a lot closer.
About the galaxies, this is not make believe, the further you go back in time the fewer heavy elements there are. This has a lot to do with supernovas, the creater of all heavy elements. There weren't any in the beginning, but as the universe aged more and more were born.
When I read statements like this, all I can think about is that balding Asian guy on the history channel who uses spectacular visualizations and computer generated galaxies, showing "timelines" about how things happened making all sorts of wild claims. The couple of times that I watched that show, I watched it with the same entertainment value of the nutcases on the "Ancient Aliens" series. If there are galaxies we can't even see, then how did they get rolled into the history channel simulation? And thats all it is, a simulation, based on a bunch of guesses; unless you're referring to something else entirely when you make these "rewind time" statements?

Everything ages, and has a beginning and an end. This is true for the galaxy, the sun, the earth.
Still no answer to the question of "how & when did the matter & energy begin (which formed the universe), and how long & what was it before it became the universe. In my view, this one point completely destroys any credibility to the idea that the universe "began", and points to it being infinite and timeless. For some reason its yet to be addressed, though I've asked 4 times now.

There is a lot of reading involved, but I've been following these developments most of my life, being a science junkie.

There are other models, but so far all I've seen is denial, not the proposition of other ideas. Denial doesn't work, it is negative without contributing. As I've said, BB has the fewest holes IMO.

No one has even mentioned the back ground radiation, another strong argument for BB.
You continue to lump my theory into the denial category. I didn't come in here and just start detracting big bang, saying "big bang is wrong because this and this and this..."; I came in here and said "I think the universe is timeless and infinite." Having a theory other than your own does not constitute denial, even if your theory is shared by the majority.

You are right; this does require a lot of reading; a lot of reading & sorting fact from fiction, that I'm not motivated enough to follow through with. So, being that I'm not willing to do any further research to prove my theory or disprove yours, the extent of my contribution to this discussion has been reached. I gracefully bow out.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,141
How you prove it is simple enough. Speed of light, and we can SEE what happened 13 billion years ago. It is also using that red shift that people are denying to figure out the distance. The further away you look, the further in the past you go.

All of what I've said is documented, and is easily accessible. You have to be willing to read though, as I did the links I posted. I am a pretty fast reader, I went through 6 scifi books in a night instead of sleeping when I was a kid. I've slowed down a lot though.

Humans have been accumulating this evidence for over a century.
 
Last edited:

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
Goes back to ignoring evidence that you don't want to fit. ...
I don't think that is a fair evaluation of my position. I have not ignored or denied the doppler shift, I am simply being openminded as to the exact cause of the phenomenon. I also don't like the term "denier" in discussion as in modern usage it is a bigoted buzzword that directly implies that something is a fact, that is then being denied by an ignorant person.

If some of the smartest people in science think space is curved, we should allow that as a possible fact. Then how does that curved space affect the sensor data showing "doppler shift"? Would it affect the colour of light or EM energy received from far away?

... the further you go back in time the fewer heavy elements there are. ...
And they know the composition of elements by... The frequencies of light and EM we receive from that area? Hmmm. Sounds like the same argument. If you believe that space in not curved, or that the curve does not affect the EM in any way than the BB theory becomes more plausible.

MvGulik said:
Thanks for confirming my suspicions about you. ...
By quoting only a few of my words you misquoted me. My point (stated in full) was; That if the received light spawned the big bang theory than the received light is NOT "evidence" of the big bang. This is basic scientific method, which you then seem to agree completely with (in your second paragraph). A phenomenon that leads to forming a theory can never be proof of the theory.

How you prove it is simple enough. Speed of light, and we can SEE what happened 13 billion years ago. It is also using that red shift that people are denying to figure out the distance. ...
Again, I never "denied" the red shift! I suggested an alternative explanation for why it is there. :)

As for "seeing" what happened, that is accurate only IF that light has not been affected by the great time or distance by something like curved space. Which is very possible and logical.

And I'm not sure that this discussion is "heated" as such, but it is nice to see such strong opinions from smart people on such a large complex issue. :)
 
Last edited:

R!f@@

Joined Apr 2, 2009
9,734
Universe is xpanding.
We say matter cannot be created no destroyed. Ever wonder this applies to humans and humans only.

We are told to believe in the unseen and wonder about it. Science does not have and WILL NOT have all the answers ever.

Science cannot prove that creator exist..but Mathematics can. I dunno how cause I am not one Mathematician. I just have a feeling about it.

But what has happened science can prove and is proving like the big bang.
There is no edge in the universe. There is more than one reality or dimension. Crossing that boundary is not possible for humans.

Universe is neither infinite. But we will never know it.
Things will end before that, before science can reveal all that.

I cannot provide evidence of things I say cause you simply will not believe it.

Everything you see to day and will see tomorrow has being foretold 1400 years ago.
I can prove this but you cannot bring ur self to believe it cause you rely on ur senses and science too much.
There are things I feel that none of you can feel unless you believe in what I believe.

If I started to show the truth you will ignore it and you will lock this thread.

I wished to talk about this to show it to you, to show you the truth and to talk about it privately to those who wants to discuss this in more civilized manner.

And My prayers are answered in a way you can never believe.

Tell me one by one who wants to talk about the creation of life with proof and I will show you where we can talk privately without argument. Away from the public.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,141
To RB:

OK, but how about the lack of heavy metals in early galaxies, the microwave background, and the hydrogen fog to name a few other things that point to a beginning (ie, big bang). It is more than the red shift. If I thought about it for a very little while I could come up with some other experimental evidence.

Again, there are other theories, which do you subscribe to? Do you believe it is steady state, or some other mechanism for a beginning.
 
Last edited:

MvGulik

Joined Nov 3, 2011
41
Gentlemen, keep it civil. No personal comments.
Roger.


We say matter cannot be created no destroyed. Ever wonder this applies to humans and humans only.
Whether matter can or can't be destroyed is highly depended on the context that's used for the term 'matter'.

When they say is can't be destroyed its general placed in the context that energy and matter are the same thing. E=Mc2. And in that context it can't be destroyed.
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
To RB:
OK, but how about the lack of heavy metals in early galaxies, the microwave background, and the hydrogen fog to name a few other things that point to a beginning (ie, big bang). It is more than the red shift. If I thought about it for a very little while I could come up with some other experimental evidence.
...
As for the heavy metals, my limited understanding is that they "see" the heavy metals etc by analysing the EM spectrum (ie light). If curved space affects that EM energy than we may not be able to accurately determine heavy metals etc at such a great distance.

Likewise the microwave background is EM.

As for the hydrogen fog, was it detected by examining EM?

If space is curved, and time is related (space time) then it's logical that there may be a time effect on EM that has travelled for so far and so long a time. A time effect might well qualify as the appearance of a doppler shift, when in fact is is a "time shift" on the EM energy. All guesswork, but logical enough.

...
Again, there are other theories, which do you subscribe to? Do you believe it is steady state, or some other mechanism for a beginning.
I'm not sure it's necessary to subscribe to someone else's theory. ;) My theory as determined by analysing what I have seen and applying common sense, is that space is curved (not externing to infinity), that the universe is roughly filled with matter/energy in galaxy type units which are each in some cyclic phenomenon. So that includes "little bangs" ie galaxies popping all over the place forever. And yes it's state is pretty steady like that, at this point in time.

As for a beginning... Well to even discuss the "beginning" of the universe is so far from common sense that only wild guesses can be given. If I had to take a wild guess maybe it would be that if space is curved so is time, so given enough time there is no "beginning". If the universe was ever different long before, given enough time it would eventually settle into a stable form within the curved space and curved time.

I'd love to hear other people's guesses.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,141
They can see the hydrogen lines OK in the distant galaxies, why would they have trouble with the other elements?

If I sound like I am convinced totally I'm not, but their is a lot of evidence. It is why the theory exists. There are a lot of details that dovetail pretty closely, such as the overall microwave background level also agreeing closely with the therotical age of the universe and expansion.

Where the theory has troubles, as I understand it, is on the quantum mechanical level. This is why string theory has made an appearance, and the twin brane model.

Another issue (also QM) is why matter and not antimatter, or both?

Trying to figure this stuff is way above my pay grade, so I'll just keep on reading.
 

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
990
like the same way the world was in fact flat until galileo came along?

My bet is that if we were alive back then, many here would be amongst those that believed it to be flat.

I've been watching this thread for a few days. Very interesting.

@Russ Hensel and Bill Marsden, kudos to you both. You are braver men than I.

Without all those in the discussion having the tools (maths, physics) to understand the discussion, then it just becomes a akin to religion. People are forced to draw from their beliefs, and there is no way to change a persons beliefs in a simple discussion. I decided this in our little 'tesseract intersecting 3D space' discussion.

Someone brought up Occam's Razor. The problem is, unless you fully understand all the alternative explanations, you have no way to know which one makes the fewest assumptions.

Anyway, enough from me. I'll just watch and enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Top