 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / October 2006Speed of Light Question
There have been a lot of comments regarding the red-shift of far away objects and some even claim that we can almost see the BB, but I would like to hear one simple answer to the following scenario: Let's say the Earth (and thus the Milky Way Galaxy), due the hyper-inflation and then steady expansion, is 5 billion light-years away from the place where the BB occurred and moving outward at a speed of 10% SOL. In the exact opposite direction of the BB locale, there is a supernova in galaxy X, 5 billion light-years away from the the place where the BB occurred and moving outward at a speed of 10% SOL. Now, unlike the famous sound wave experiment with the band on a moving train, light waves don't compress or stretch. So, a light beam emitted from a stationary object at the same instant a second beam is emitted from an object moving at 25%SOL, will propagate through space at the same speed. Having said that, is it correct to assume then that any redshift observed in a distant object is not an indication of how fast the object is receding from us, but rather how fast we are receding from the point in space where that object was when it emitted the light we are just now seeing. Also, since both the object (supernova) and the observer (Earth) are receding from the BB locale at roughly the same speed (10% SOL), does the redshift indicate 10% SOL (our recession speed) or the differential speed of 20% SOL or some Einsteinian monster-formula result in between. Let the bullshitting begin !!! > There have been a lot of comments regarding the red-shift of far away > objects and some even claim that we can almost see the BB, but I would like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 5 billion light-years away from the the place where the BB occurred and > moving outward at a speed of 10% SOL. Hagar, you're still thinking in terms of the BB having occurred at some fixed location (a center). There was no such thing. The BB occurred *EVERYWHERE* at once. > Now, unlike the famous sound wave experiment with the band on a moving > train, light waves don't compress or stretch. Oh but they do! As space expands, the waves of light expand along with it. So the further a light wave travels, the longer its wavelength becomes. This is the so-called cosmological red shift, which is distinct from the usual red shift due simply to moving source and receiver. > So, a light beam emitted from > a stationary object at the same instant a second beam is emitted from an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > from us, but rather how fast we are receding from the point in space where > that object was when it emitted the light we are just now seeing. It's a combination of the cosmological redshift and the usual Doppler red shift. > Also, > since both the object (supernova) and the observer (Earth) are receding from > the BB locale at roughly the same speed (10% SOL), does the redshift > indicate 10% SOL (our recession speed) or the differential speed of 20% SOL > or some Einsteinian monster-formula result in between. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278 > Let the bullshitting begin !!! >> There have been a lot of comments regarding the red-shift of far away >> objects and some even claim that we can almost see the BB, but I would [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > occurred at some fixed location (a center). There was > no such thing. The BB occurred *EVERYWHERE* at once. OK, Greg, let's take this one step at a time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the source of the BB is called a SINGULARITY. That means, to me anyway, a clump of matter/energy/swiss cheese or whatever, from the size of a pinhead to possibly the size of the diameter of our solar system. The fact remains, it is all conjecture and nobody knows for certain and in all likelihood no one ever will. Now, all this stuff blew up, and just like a firecracker, it had a single atomic size location where the bang originated. How can it then occur EVERYWHERE simultaneously??? It is also implied in ALL science manuals that space at that time was totally devoid of everything, which means no physical matter, no gravity, no dark matter. no secret energy waves, to time dimension ... just an infinitely expansive nothingness, with a probable temperature of exactly 0 degrees Kelvin. Now, as I see it, the BB created, converted, transposed, altered, or whatever you want to call it, something that was small into something that mushroomed into something really huge. This something expanded at speeds way beyond the present day SOL, since there was absolutely nothing to restrain it in the beginning. It wasn't until stuff started clumping together (which in itself indicates and uneven, or irregular expansion pattern) and gravity developed to slow the expanding stuff down in its outward expansion. At one point along the way, due to the expansion, the distances between matter (galaxies and clusters) grew, thus abating the reign of gravity and, just like sh.t rolling downhill, the universe is again speeding up towards the empty void of the surrounding, infinite, omni-directional space ... the path of least resistance, if you will. This is my story and I'm sticking with it. > >> There have been a lot of comments regarding the red-shift of far away > >> objects and some even claim that we can almost see the BB, but I would [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > had a single atomic size location where the bang originated. How can it > then occur EVERYWHERE simultaneously??? The "singularity" as you call it (it wasn't necessarily a singularity, as singularities in physics have certain properties that don't quite fit this scenario), contained all of space. There was no space outside of it. > It is also implied in ALL science > manuals that space at that time was totally devoid of everything, which > means no physical matter, no gravity, no dark matter. no secret energy > waves, to time dimension ... just an infinitely expansive nothingness, with > a probable temperature of exactly 0 degrees Kelvin. No, there was no space outside of the BB. > Now, as I see it, the BB > created, converted, transposed, altered, or whatever you want to call it, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > uneven, or irregular expansion pattern) and gravity developed to slow the > expanding stuff down in its outward expansion. The total energy content of spacetime at the time of the BB was the same as it is now. Energy and mass both gravitate according to General Relativity, so the gravitational binding was in place from square one -- it didn't require that the energy be in the form of matter, nor did it depend upon it clumping for gravitation to exist. In other words, the Universe was born with enough energy to allow expansion against its self-gravitation. > At one point along the way, > due to the expansion, the distances between matter (galaxies and clusters) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This is my story and I'm sticking with it. > > >> There have been a lot of comments regarding the red-shift of far away > > >> objects and some even claim that we can almost see the BB, but I would [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > No, there was no space outside of the BB. I do not think we can answer that with our present knowledge of how the universe works. That is almost like the God no God debate. There is no proof for either answer. > > Now, as I see it, the BB > > created, converted, transposed, altered, or whatever you want to call it, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > This is my story and I'm sticking with it. > > No, there was no space outside of the BB. > > I do not think we can answer that with our present knowledge of how the > universe works. > That is almost like the God no God debate. There is no proof for either > answer. Not really. If there were space outside of the BB, then it would be part of universe. The BB theory addresses *all* of spacetime. You might find Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial to be of interest: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > > > No, there was no space outside of the BB. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not really. If there were space outside of the BB, then > it would be part of universe. Or the wavefront from the BB can be just pushing it aside, or destroying it. Like you said we have no way of looking outside of our Universe, hence we really have only speculation, hence it is not answerable with known facts. The BB theory addresses > *all* of spacetime. > > You might find Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial to > be of interest: > > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > > > > No, there was no space outside of the BB. > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Like you said we have no way of looking outside of our Universe, hence we > really have only speculation, hence it is not answerable with known facts. If it can be pushed or destroyed or acted upon in any way by our universe or things in our universe, then it's part of our universe. > > > > > No, there was no space outside of the BB. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > any way by our universe or things in our universe, > then it's part of our universe. How about this, A ship in the ocean pushes aside the water as it moves through the ocean. The ocean is not part of the ship, if it was the ship would sink. > How about this, A ship in the ocean pushes aside the water as it moves > through the ocean. The ocean is not part of the ship, if it was the ship > would sink. But when you talk about a "universe", you are talking about *everything* that can possibly interact and is in some way continuously connected by a single manifold (we call it space-time). Basically, if you can point to it, it's part of the universe. Of course, if the BB is correct, there are parts of our universe that we can have no hope of ever seeing or touching or interacting with in any way (they lie beyond what's called our cosmic horizon, where the speed of recession becomes equal to and then exceeds the speed of light). But this is not the same thing as being a separate universe, as there is a continuous path between all points (an observer sitting at our cosmic horizon would be able to see as far as us in one direction, and equally far beyond in the opposite direction). >> >> There have been a lot of comments regarding the red-shift of far away >> >> objects and some even claim that we can almost see the BB, but I would [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > No, there was no space outside of the BB. Greg, i just love it when you say such things so matter-of-factly and with a straight face. Just who does science expect to convince with statements like this? happy days and... starry starry nights!  SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > > No, there was no space outside of the BB. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just who does science expect to convince with > statements like this? It's one of the postulates of the theory under discussion. If you want to discuss some other theory, fine. But it should accord with all existing data first to make it worthwhile. >> > No, there was no space outside of the BB. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > theory, fine. But it should accord with all > existing data first to make it worthwhile. It's one of the postulates that make the theory under discussion unbelievable. Doesn't science understand this? It negates the theory, doesn't it? or at least it places a dark cloud of mysticism over the theory. There is no space outside the BB, ergo... There is no space outside of our presently expanding space. If it's not "space" outside the BB, then wtf is it? This is a challenge the "theory" must address satisfactorily. If it does not, or cannot, then it's hardly a good hypothesis, let alone a "theory". You mentioned the separation of time and space to try to explain conditions prior to the BB... Can this even be done? happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > >> > No, there was no space outside of the BB. > >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > http://www.painellsworth.net > http://www.savethechildren.org Paine, if you had received the benefits of a good science education indoctrination, you would not be asking these kinds of questions, anymore than a good Catholic would be questioning the infallibility of the Pope. Double-A > > >> > No, there was no space outside of the BB. > > >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > anymore than a good Catholic would be questioning the infallibility of > the Pope. Why don't you ask Painiarse which direction he points in that's towards the outside of the universe? Since every direction we can point in 3D is in the direction of the past and the BB, his answer should prove to be amusing for those who can see it (I have him killfiled, so I don't usually see his blatherings, only those that get copied by the few people who respond to him). >> > >> > No, there was no space outside of the BB. >> > >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > his blatherings, only those that get copied by > the few people who respond to him). Interesting, and i've always held you and your knowledge of astronomy in high esteem, Greg. Though i haven't always agreed with your rigid adherence to scientific tenet, i've consistently recognized that you know much more than i do about astronomy. And in this, i've learned from you. I shall continue to enjoy your posts! happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > >> > >> > No, there was no space outside of the BB. > >> > >> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > http://www.painellsworth.net > http://www.savethechildren.org I respect Greg's large knowledge base and expertise as well. But I also like to hear from people who look at things a little differently. I don't think science has all the final answers today anymore that it did at the end of the nineteenth century when Lord Kelvin said that all that was left for physics to do was to work out the accuracey to the fifth and sixth decimal places. Double-A > I respect Greg's large knowledge base and expertise as well. But I > also like to hear from people who look at things a little differently. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Double-A Creativity can exist on several levels, and it's just as powerful at every level you find it. People like Greg, Barry, Odysseus, Scott and a host of others who post in alt.astronomy are crucially needed to keep certain other posters' heads out of the clouds and their feet on the ground. Personally, they make me feel taller. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > ... > There is no space outside the BB, ergo... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If it's not "space" outside the BB, then wtf is it? > ... There is no outside. >> ... >> There is no space outside the BB, ergo... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There is no outside. :-) I always have to chuckle at this. Some people are firmly mired in a rigid, euclidean space.... The BB *created* space. It is meaningless to talk about "outside". Any discussion of outside the BB implies a frame of reference that can encompass 'space' where none exists. You can't stand back and look at it.... Any more than you can look outside the baloon when you're in it... >>> ... >>> There is no space outside the BB, ergo... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > back and look at it.... Any more than you can look outside the baloon > when you're in it... And i like to "chuckle" about people who think that the above is a rational explanation of the beginnings of our Universe. You might as well say something like, "It is meaningless to talk about seeing "God". Any discussion about seeing God implies a frame of reference that can encompass a physical God where none exists. You can't stand back and look at God.... Any more than you can look at a ghost when it hollers... B O O ! So chuckle on, Mr. Magoo. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine http://www.painellsworth.net http://www.savethechildren.org > > There have been a lot of comments regarding the red-shift of far away > > objects and some even claim that we can almost see the BB, but I would [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > occurred at some fixed location (a center). There was > no such thing. The BB occurred *EVERYWHERE* at once. Ok, so help me out here, but like you said in the other thread that was all very compact, and then space itself was being created first with the hyperinflation, and then what we see today, would that not indicate that indeed the BB can be looked at as being a point source with a center, from which all expansion occured from. I may be incorrect but I look at the BB as a point source, kind of like when you drop a rock in a pond, you have the waves originating from where the rock impacts the water. > > Now, unlike the famous sound wave experiment with the band on a moving > > train, light waves don't compress or stretch. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > Let the bullshitting begin !!! > Ok, so help me out here, but like you said in the other thread that was all > very compact, and then space itself was being created first with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you drop a rock in a pond, you have the waves originating from where the > rock impacts the water. The problem with the pond analogy is that there was no pond analog in the BB; all was and is was self- contained in the primordial universe. Maybe it would be helpful to use another analogy, perhaps looking at it as a change of scale rather than an expansion (this is not strictly correct, but it may help to clarify the point of view). So, let's imagine for a moment that the universe has been static in size over time, maybe infinite in extent, but that all the contents have been shrinking in size over time. From any point in this universe, all the rest would seem to be expanding away, yet even so, space is not expanding into something else, and there is no point you could call the center. > > Ok, so help me out here, but like you said in the other thread that was > all [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > no pond analog in the BB; all was and is was self- > contained in the primordial universe. The reason for the pond analogy was to visualize the waves ofiginating from the impact point. From what I see that would hold for the BB as well, as it does for pretty much all explosions we know about. Take any explosion and you have a wave front emanating out from the origin of the explosion. Only difference with the BB is that it is creating space as it expands. > Maybe it would be helpful to use another analogy, > perhaps looking at it as a change of scale rather [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > expanding into something else, and there is no point > you could call the center. Almost like being inside of a balloon as it is being expanded > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEnetcom.ca> wrote in message > > The problem with the pond analogy is that there was > > no pond analog in the BB; all was and is was self- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you have a wave front emanating out from the origin of the explosion. Only > difference with the BB is that it is creating space as it expands. The space is being created internally to the Universe, though. And it's not really correct to call it an explosion, because that implies that the components are flying out into pre-existing space -- a Newtonian view rather than a Relativistic one. > > Maybe it would be helpful to use another analogy, > > perhaps looking at it as a change of scale rather [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Almost like being inside of a balloon as it is being expanded A closer analogy would be to consider space to be the surface of the balloon, not the interior (we have to imagine a 2D analog of the 3D world). In this analogy, there is no part of the universe either inside or outside of the surface of the balloon. It's a poor analogy, I admit, but it is one that's commonly invoked. > > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEnetcom.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > that implies that the components are flying out into pre-existing > space -- a Newtonian view rather than a Relativistic one. Depends on your view. Sice it is impossible to know what is outside the universe, that becomes more of a question of metaphysics/philosophy than it does based known facts. It is know that we are expanded, what is past the front of that expansion we have no clue of. > > > Maybe it would be helpful to use another analogy, > > > perhaps looking at it as a change of scale rather [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > of the surface of the balloon. It's a poor analogy, > I admit, but it is one that's commonly invoked. I see where that is going. Thanks for the link on your other post. I may not have the math to understand a lot of the material, but I do find it interesting, plus it makes me study up on the math so I can understand. > > > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEnetcom.ca> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > It is know that we are expanded, what is past the front of that expansion we > have no clue of. You are assuming that we can point in the direction of the front of the expansion from where we sit embedded in space. If you take the case of the balloon analogy, where the creatures living on the 2D surface have no conception of anything off of the surface (it simply does not exist for them), they cannot point to it. They cannot point in a direction perpendicular to the suface, that "dimension" is not part of their universe. [snip] > > A closer analogy would be to consider space to be the > > surface of the balloon, not the interior (we have to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I may not have the math to understand a lot of the material, but I do find > it interesting, plus it makes me study up on the math so I can understand. You're welcome. Enjoy! > > > > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEnetcom.ca> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > You are assuming that we can point in the direction of the > front of the expansion from where we sit embedded in space. Since there is talk about actually seeing the BB, after they found those early galaxies that developed shortly after the BB, does that not imply direction towards the source of the BB from our present vantage point. Yes of course I realize that that also happened way in the past if we do get to see it, but it seems it would also imply direction. > If you take the case of the balloon analogy, where the > creatures living on the 2D surface have no conception of > anything off of the surface (it simply does not exist for > them), they cannot point to it. They cannot point in a > direction perpendicular to the suface, that "dimension" > is not part of their universe. Working on this. Sounds like you are trying to say there are boundaries, which then begs the question, what is on the other side. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You're welcome. Enjoy! > > You are assuming that we can point in the direction of the > > front of the expansion from where we sit embedded in space. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes of course I realize that that also happened way in the past if we do get > to see it, but it seems it would also imply direction. We'll never see the BB event itself by any form of light or radiation, since the universe was entirely opaque before radiation uncoupled from matter (the density grew low enough for neutral atoms to form). But we should be able to see within a few hundred thousand years of the first event. Maybe a bit closer if we can ever build neutrino telescopes with some kind of resolving capabilities. Also, when we look out in space in *any* direction you choose - all 4pi steradians -- you are looking back towards the Big Bang. Where does that leave you for pointing in the direction away from the BB? > > If you take the case of the balloon analogy, where the > > creatures living on the 2D surface have no conception of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Working on this. Sounds like you are trying to say there are boundaries, > which then begs the question, what is on the other side. They can see no boundaries, nor even conceptualize them in their 2D world view. They might conceive of the idea of higher dimensions in which their universe is embedded as a mathematical exercise, but they would have no physical access to them, just as we are unable to point in the direction of where the expansion of our own universe is "going". > > > You are assuming that we can point in the direction of the > > > front of the expansion from where we sit embedded in space. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > closer if we can ever build neutrino telescopes with > some kind of resolving capabilities. Ok, I can see this. Have you read about the 3 widely spaced satellites that are fixing to go up, that will act as some kind of telescope. From what I read they think they will be able to go back as close as you describe here. > Also, when we look out in space in *any* direction > you choose - all 4pi steradians -- you are looking > back towards the Big Bang. Where does that leave > you for pointing in the direction away from the BB? Thanks, that conceptulizes it quite nice. > > > If you take the case of the balloon analogy, where the > > > creatures living on the 2D surface have no conception of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > direction of where the expansion of our own universe is > "going". Got it now. Thanks. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.