Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: Big Bang / Lightspeed

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,844

    Big Bang / Lightspeed

    I heard an interesting argument yesterday between two people talking about whether the Big Bang actually occurred or not. One of them took the position that the Big Bang couldn't have occurred because assuming every single planet in our solar system started out in one spot and assuming nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then all stars should already be visible in our night sky and no more should ever show up again.

    The reason for this is that after the Big Bang, the section that became Earth shot off in one direction at the speed of light or less and other chunks of rock did the same. As of right now it has been some billions years since the Big Bang and the light from some of the more distant stars are just now reaching us. How is it possible that they are just reaching us? How did those stars travel away from Earth so quickly that their light wasn't even visible to Earth?

    I don't know if I'm explaining this too well since in his argument he used a picture. Basically it showed one piece marked Earth heading upwards and one piece marked unknown star heading downwards. He then drew a line of light coming from the unknown star right away and it reaching the Earth particle and said that if Earth was heading straight away from it at light speed, then the light from the unknown star could only ever be out of the sight of Earth by the same distance that the two particles were apart when the Big Bang occurred unless the light got blocked somehow in which case it could be further behind, but it would take a very random act of chance for it to fall behind by billions of years.

    Let me know if I'm not explaining this well enough and I'll try again

    Anyways, I see his point and it seems to make sense. Unless the Big Bang planet was so large that it would take light millions and millions of years to cross from one side of it to the other, how could any star actually outpace Earth by so much that its light would become billions of years away from us? Especially if Earth isn't moving through the solar system at light speed right now and not many other starts are doing so, how is it possible that all the light from all the stars haven't become visible here on Earth? Also, if the Big Bang is proven true, does that mean that planets may actually be able to go beyond the speed of light or that there are things about time that we don't understand yet?
    Hail to the ones who came before us

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    35
    I am by no means a physics expert, but I would like to point out a few mistakes here. First I am a little unclear as to the argument, but the big thing that sticks out here is the fact that you seem to state that the universe and material in it (planets) was fully formed at the moment of the big bang. As I recall, the only elements that were present shortly after the big bang were hydrogen, and possibly some helium. Therefore, there is absolutely no way planets could be formed at the beginning of the universe. Once gravitational forces pulled enough hydrogen atoms together to form stars did the possiblity for planet formation begin, as I believe planetary material is formed from the remains of stars (supernovas?). Therefore, it would be a while before planets were formed. This answer is far from complete, and I would have to go look much more information up before I say anything more, just to make sure I am not completely wrong.
    No.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    51

    Are there any universal laws?

    relitivity created a phylisophical transformation in the way an individuals may view the universe< the speed of light always is the same regardless the speed of the observer> that is to say ones speed is irelevent> when one postulates is it posible to travel faster than the speed of light one is infact saying is it posible for something to travel faster than three hundred thousand meters persecond relitive to ones own velocity regardless the velocity of the observer. Quite simply we all live in our own relitive universe, where the constant of light is directly related to the observer.

    It is clear that the completed version of Unified Field Theory is clasified. It is therfore left to the individual to try to understand universal laws. At this moment we are told there are no universal laws and energy is the ability to do work. An obserd state of afairs. It is no wonder phsicists are chasing there own tales.

    It is my view that the universe is based on temporal physics. In order to stave of reinversion the big bang had to have an equal and oppistie force to allow time space expansion. These forces had to consist of a positive and negative temporal universe. Each parralel universe tied to gether by the inverted singularity. The stability of expansion was also fasilitated by the creation of smaller black holes. These smaller black holes acting as doorways fasilitating the movement of energy between a positive time universe and a negative time universe. The key to understanding this is that only light may enter singularities. All other forms of energy are transfered to electromagnetic radiation at the event horizon. Light may pass between universes with differing temporal states as light is nurtral regarding time.

    This theory is based on three universal laws.
    Unity in all things
    Duality in all things
    The cyclical nature of all things

    All of the laws of physics are based on one of these or the relation ship between them. There is a direct relation ship between these laws. Reductionism does not work regarding the nature of the universe as a whole. Only eatern thought interms of the wholistic relationship between induvidual systems may understand fully the evolution of this system.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    35
    I am sorry Prometheus, but please get a spell check. I can't understand a single thing you said.
    No.

  5. #5
    lurch Guest
    I don't usually come down here the the science board because contrary to the title, the discussions seem wander far from science into the realm of fantasy.
    I heard an interesting argument yesterday between two people talking about whether the Big Bang actually occurred or not. One of them took the position that the Big Bang couldn't have occurred because assuming every single planet in our solar system started out in one spot and assuming nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then all stars should already be visible in our night sky and no more should ever show up again.
    But the big bang (it isn't necessary to capitalize the names of theories) isn't an assumption. It is a conclusion. We see that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. (There are exceptions caused by gravity, like galaxy clusters and the great attractor). Now it is reasonable to conclude that if everything is moving away, in other words that the universe is expanding, then in the distant past things were closer. If you keep following that line of reasoning, at some point in the past everything expanded from a single point.

    Recent evidence has shown that that initial expansion began about 13.7 billion years ago. And the limit at which we can see objects is a bit closer than that. We don't actually see any new stars, we only see what is out there with greater clarity. When the Hubble Space Telescope was fixed it was pointed at a spot in the sky away from the plane of the Milky Way. The spot was in the neighborhood of Polaris. it was dark area between stars where nothing had ever been by any earth-bound telescopes. A relatively long exposure was made. The result was the Hubble deep field (north) picture. If is full of galaxies and dots of light that can only be galaxies at that distance. So I think that it is true that we won't be seeing any new stars because their light is just reaching earth. As far as we are able to look, we see stars (galaxies, actually). The new ones are discoveries rather than light just arriving.
    The reason for this is that after the Big Bang, the section that became Earth shot off in one direction at the speed of light or less and other chunks of rock did the same.
    Well, there weren't any chunks of rock at the time of the big bang, only what is called plasma. You'll have to get a book on the subject to get an adequate explanation. Cosmology is not my field although I find it interesting. Let me recommend a couple books that a layman can grasp. The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report by Timothy Ferris. Ferris is a Professor (emeritus) of Physics at the University of California. He has taught 5 disciplines at 3 universities. Once when I cited Ferris, a creationist found out that he taught in the department of journalism at UC Berkeley and dismissed his opinion. Yes he did teach in the department of journalism - a course on scientific writing for science majors. Ferris also taught physics, astrophysics and astronomy. Another book is Wrinkles in Time by George Smoot and Keay Davidson. Smoot is an astrophysicist and Davidson is a science writer. The book is the story of the COBE experiments that essentially confirmed the big bang theory and solved some problems.

    Finally, there is the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) site. Click on the universe tab for a good tutorial on cosmology. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm.html
    As of right now it has been some billions years since the Big Bang and the light from some of the more distant stars are just now reaching us. How is it possible that they are just reaching us? How did those stars travel away from Earth so quickly that their light wasn't even visible to Earth?
    That's just not logical. Of course the light from distant stars is just reaching us. It has been for as long as the earth has existed. If any part of the universe moved away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light, they are forever outside of our view. The result would not be that it would take longer for the light to reach us but that it would never reach us. But light from objects that are moving away at less than the speed of light has always reached us even if we lacked the technology to detect it, but it is red shifted.
    I don't know if I'm explaining this too well since in his argument he used a picture. Basically it showed one piece marked Earth heading upwards and one piece marked unknown star heading downwards. He then drew a line of light coming from the unknown star right away and it reaching the Earth particle and said that if Earth was heading straight away from it at light speed, then the light from the unknown star could only ever be out of the sight of Earth by the same distance that the two particles were apart when the Big Bang occurred unless the light got blocked somehow in which case it could be further behind, but it would take a very random act of chance for it to fall behind by billions of years.

    Let me know if I'm not explaining this well enough and I'll try again
    I don't know that explaining it would help. At the instance of the big bang the earth didn't exist and neither did this hypothetical star that we can't see. Perhaps Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell might also help with the concepts.
    Anyways, I see his point and it seems to make sense. Unless the Big Bang planet was so large that it would take light millions and millions of years to cross from one side of it to the other, how could any star actually outpace Earth by so much that its light would become billions of years away from us? Especially if Earth isn't moving through the solar system at light speed right now and not many other starts are doing so, how is it possible that all the light from all the stars haven't become visible here on Earth? Also, if the Big Bang is proven true, does that mean that planets may actually be able to go beyond the speed of light or that there are things about time that we don't understand yet?
    Yea. That's the problem with quacks. Their explanations always sound so rational. The big bang wasn't a planet. Neither time nor space existed, and physicists can't even describe the singularity or any of the physics for the first 10^-43 seconds.

    One huge problem for amateurs presented by crackpot ideas about science is our inability to address them because of our ignorance. I have read enough about the topic to realize that it is pure balderdash, even if your translation doesn't represent it adequately. But I am not an astrophysicist nor a cosmologist. I understand in principle but need to go back to the books to answer in detail. I can do that, but it isn't my problem. Another problem is that it will take you several weeks of reading to grasp the fundamentals, and by that time the discussion is over and your opponent has claimed victory because no one is educated in a complex and difficult field of science to debunk his claptrap. It is a device that works well for creationists.
    Last edited by lurch; 09-01-2003 at 03:48 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    51

    -10sec Big Bang

    Edward Hubble even to Einstines suprise proved beyond resonable doubt that the universe is expanding. Whats more it seems to be excellerating. This forced Einsien to remove his cosmilogical constant from Special Relitivity, he latter admited it was the biggest mistake of his life.

    Relitivity theory alone was elegent and solved a whole host of scientific problems. However it also suggested the universe acted in a state of inertia. This was dificult to believe in the early twentyeth century as the steady state predominated cosmilogical theory. The cause of this I believe is because of the wait of Theoligy. This is why Einstien added the cosmilogical constant to Special Realitivity. The cosmilogical constant was denounced by Einstien himself and is not accepted by any physicists, as Edward Hubble through the use of the doplar spectrum shift with in light proves that the majority of Galixies are excelerating away from each other. This galactic expansion actualy fasilitates the creation of time space.

    It is incorect to imply the big bang occured 14 000 000 000 billion years ago as we are living in it. This expansion has never ended. It continues as you read. It is also incorect to imply that the big bang never occured as we can deduce from the given speeds of celestial objects that all matter and energy orriginated from the same central point.

    I will try to explain my knowledge of reality in more simple terms. It is dificult to explain reality with in a scientific context as science deals with complexity. To under stand physics one must understand what : Timespace, Fields, Matter, Singularitys, Dopplarshift, Light, Antimatter, and the basics of Quantum, Newtonian and Realitivity. These things are broken down by the human mind. We give them names and say they are different. I can explain how all of these things are the same thing however not in a scientific context. The problem is science deals with complexity. We know that complexity is balanced by order. This duality is governed by a third force which unites both. Phylosiphy seems to most a uninspired, dificult, concept to grasp. I have found one can understand ones environment throught the use of the mind alone. The method of thought I use is known as Taoism.

    I do not mean to be rude but if one can not engage me on a scientific level do not blame my english teachers the system is far from perfect. If one can not understand the complexity of temporal physics mabe one should try engaging me on a philisophical level. I understand the universe and the way it functions through the collective teachings of the Masters of Old.

    Zombie it should be clear to you that science and reductionism have failed. These can not discribe the universe. Holistic thought can. Please correct my unproven assertions but do not reduce my work. It is very rude to take one out of context. I am simply trying to share my knowledge. Is it not true that even most ignorant of men has valuble insight. Let us have a constructive dialougue and we may hammer out the differences in our own understandings.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by AMD4EVER
    The reason for this is that after the Big Bang, the section that became Earth shot off in one direction at the speed of light or less and other chunks of rock did the same. As of right now it has been some billions years since the Big Bang and the light from some of the more distant stars are just now reaching us.
    If we were traveling away from the central point at just under the speed of light and a star was moving away in the opposite direction at just under the speed of light then the combined speeds would well exceed the speed of light, lets say 1.8 light speed. And even the light produced by it would never reach us because it would be traveling towards us at negative .8 light speed in affect we will never be able to see them.

    If anyone has already pointed this out i did not me to ignore and/or offend i am simply pressed for time.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    12
    The doppler red shift shows that galaxies are moving away from us but can it show the direction of movement? If some galaxies have crossed our paths at an angle, they will show as moving away but they will not have had the same start-point as us. Should we also not allow for the way light shows redder as it moves through gas clouds? Our sun, after all, shows red in the evening without moving away from us any faster (if it all) than it did in the daytime.

    Hubble saw that some galaxies had more red in their light than others and noted that they were smaller and fainter and that the red shift varied in proportion and concluded that they were further away . Could it not be, however, that the smaller, fainter ones are actually fainter because they are smaller? Could it be that a smaller, fainter galaxy would give light of a lower wavelength than a big bright one? After all, a lightbulb gives more light when it runs hotter and one running on an almost flat battery gives a faint red glow rather than the white glow of a lightbulb going full whack.
    Last edited by DMick; 01-02-2006 at 04:37 AM. Reason: Edited to subscribe to email notification of new postings

  9. #9
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by DMick
    The doppler red shift shows that galaxies are moving away from us but can it show the direction of movement? If some galaxies have crossed our paths at an angle, they will show as moving away but they will not have had the same start-point as us. Should we also not allow for the way light shows redder as it moves through gas clouds? Our sun, after all, shows red in the evening without moving away from us any faster (if it all) than it did in the daytime.

    Hubble saw that some galaxies had more red in their light than others and noted that they were smaller and fainter and that the red shift varied in proportion and concluded that they were further away . Could it not be, however, that the smaller, fainter ones are actually fainter because they are smaller? Could it be that a smaller, fainter galaxy would give light of a lower wavelength than a big bright one? After all, a lightbulb gives more light when it runs hotter and one running on an almost flat battery gives a faint red glow rather than the white glow of a lightbulb going full whack.
    I'm taking a shot here, because it's been almost 30 years since I had college physics and studied Relativity. The Doppler Red Shift is dependent on the angle that a star is moving away from you. The magnitude of the shift is proportional to the relative velocity vector. For example, if the star is traveling perpendicular to your point of reference, there isn't a red shift, but as the angle approaches 180 degrees from reference, it's at its maximum.
    As for the wavelength of light emitted, (as observed from a fixed reference frame) I believe that's governed by the physics of nuclear fusion and should be independent of the star's size.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by DMick
    The doppler red shift shows that galaxies are moving away from us but can it show the direction of movement? If some galaxies have crossed our paths at an angle, they will show as moving away but they will not have had the same start-point as us. Should we also not allow for the way light shows redder as it moves through gas clouds? Our sun, after all, shows red in the evening without moving away from us any faster (if it all) than it did in the daytime.
    We see red at sunset because the atmosphere is scattering out the bluer colors, not because of any doppler effect. The red you're seeing is the same red that the sun gives off, and hasn't been changed by the atmosphere.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Kronus
    We see red at sunset because the atmosphere is scattering out the bluer colors, not because of any doppler effect. The red you're seeing is the same red that the sun gives off, and hasn't been changed by the atmosphere.
    Would that be like the Compton effect? Your posting sounds right to me, JPSatre.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    Quote Originally Posted by DMick
    Would that be like the Compton effect?
    Nope. With the Compton effect light is actually losing energy due to collisions. Sunlight is red at sunset (and the sky blue) because of something called Rayleigh scattering. Basically, all different colored light is coming from the sun. When it hits the atmosphere, it scatters. Wavelengths at the blue end of the spectrum scatter more; that's the blue you see when you look at the sky. At sunset the light has to go through so much atmosphere that all the blue has completely scattered out, leaving the reds. Thus, the sun looks red at sunset. The light itself hasn't changed though, just which wavelengths are actually reaching you.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Southern ON, Canada
    Posts
    4
    [QUOTE=prometheus]relitivity created a phylisophical transformation in the way an individuals may view the universe< the speed of light always is the same regardless the speed of the observer> that is to say ones speed is irelevent>

    Actually our relative velocity is very important. Especially at speed approaching the speed of light. If our velocity wansn't important then what is the point of special relativity? What good is it because all it talks about is the effect of high relative velocities.

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    when one postulates is it posible to travel faster than the speed of light one is infact saying is it posible for something to travel faster than three hundred thousand meters persecond relitive to ones own velocity regardless the velocity of the observer. Quite simply we all live in our own relitive universe, where the constant of light is directly related to the observer.
    Actually the speed of light is three hundred thousand KILOMETERS per second...

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    It is clear that the completed version of Unified Field Theory is clasified. It is therfore left to the individual to try to understand universal laws. At this moment we are told there are no universal laws and energy is the ability to do work. An obserd state of afairs. It is no wonder phsicists are chasing there own tales.
    I don't know where you get your information but there have been many Unified Field Theories over the years and although they were all complete, none of them offered a satisfactory description of the universe. As for your notion of universal laws, I can name several theories that have become known as laws: Newton's Law's of Motion (which you ignore later in your post), Newton's Law of Gravitation and the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    It is my view that the universe is based on temporal physics.
    Yes it is. That is also the view of every other physisist on the planet (All though later in you post it becomes clear that you have a very different idea of what temporal physics means). Without including time in our theories we would be unable to describe many important aspects of our universe. Velocity would be meaningless as would acceleration and force.

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    In order to stave of reinversion the big bang had to have an equal and oppistie force to allow time space expansion.
    The big bang was "outwards". It doesn't need an "equal and opposite force to allow time space (spacetime?) expansion". Gravity already opposes the expansion of the universe so we don't need another force there. Furthermore, if an equal and opposite force was present then there can be no acceleration in the expansion of the universe even though that is what we have observed (see Newton's Laws of Motion).

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    These forces had to consist of a positive and negative temporal universe. Each parralel universe tied to gether by the inverted singularity. The stability of expansion was also fasilitated by the creation of smaller black holes. These smaller black holes acting as doorways fasilitating the movement of energy between a positive time universe and a negative time universe. The key to understanding this is that only light may enter singularities. All other forms of energy are transfered to electromagnetic radiation at the event horizon. Light may pass between universes with differing temporal states as light is nurtral regarding time.
    What does positive and negative time mean? What is an inverted singularity? How is it different from a regular singularity? How does the light entering these singularities escape in the other universe? How does light affect the expansion of the universe when it has no mass?

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    This theory is based on three universal laws.
    I thought there weren't any?

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    Unity in all things
    What unifies all things? How are they unified?

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    Duality in all things
    Do you mean supersymetery?

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    The cyclical nature of all things
    Ah yes the penultamite mystical "law": the cyclical nature of all things. Are you saying that even squares a cyclical in nature? Modern cosmology hasn't ruled out the possibility that there is enough mass in the universe to collapse back on itself and many processes repeat themselves over long periods of time but that is hardly "all things".

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    All of the laws of physics are based on one of these or the relation ship between them.
    Besides supersymetery (which resembles duality superficially), name a theory that depends on your above "laws of physics".

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    There is a direct relation ship between these laws.
    And that relationship is....what?

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    Reductionism does not work regarding the nature of the universe as a whole.
    Yes it does. Only a fool would suggest that reductionism doesn't describe the relationship between the individual parts of a system. Wholism on the other hand supposes that the individual parts of a system aren't important to understanding the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus
    Only eatern thought interms of the wholistic relationship between induvidual systems may understand fully the evolution of this system.
    How can you understand the evolution of the universe if you don't understand its parts? How would explain the presence of planet without knowledge of the nuclear fusion inside stars? Wholism is a failure when it comes to understanding all but the most simplistic systems in the universe.

    I would suggest prometheus that you expand on your ideas and provide evidence for your fantastical claims. You should also take a high-school physics course. You might learn something.
    Hello I'd like an arguement.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,930
    cs-comm, check the dates on the posts. You're responding to a post from last August. I don't think you're likely to get a response at this point.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Kronus
    cs-comm, check the dates on the posts. You're responding to a post from last August. I don't think you're likely to get a response at this point.
    Not last August; August 2003.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •