Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

It can't be radial expansion for every point within.  Not if it stays consistent in the sky.

That is exactly the point : space get bigger, blow like a cookie dough. But it's the space that get bigger, not the stars that move in the space (they do that too, but not away from each other, they just get the effect of whatever forces push on them).
Can you understand that this is the goddamn current model.

[Andir]

Can you understand that this is the goddamn current model.

I never disputed that that's the current model, what I'm saying is that it should be provable by measuring the difference in redshift between galaxies we are in origin line with and those that we are 45 degress of.  (edit: and if it's not proven, then the current model is wrong.)

In the pictures that Il Palazzo provided earlier, the redshifts should be different between D1 and D2 (and D3, but that should be "closer" do D1 than D2 is.  D2 is inherently growing slower than D1 and D3 by simple geometry.)

[Phmcw]

Can you understand that this is the goddamn current model.

I never disputed that that's the current model, what I'm saying is that it should be provable by measuring the difference in redshift between galaxies we are in origin line with and those that we are 45 degress of.  (edit: and if it's not proven, then the current model is wrong.)

In the pictures that Il Palazzo provided earlier, the redshifts should be different between D1 and D2 (and D3, but that should be "closer" do D1 than D2 is.  D2 is inherently growing slower than D1 and D3 by simple geometry.)

But... no!
why would it. All space will increase from a certain percentage, the red shift will only depend from distance.

[ECrownofFire]

The thing is, you CAN'T observe that effect, because there IS no point of origin. If there was one, then it would be true, but because there is none, you just can't. You are trying to observe movement away from a point that doesn't exist.

If there is no point of origin, then we are not expanding and the big bang is false.  The Big bang itself says we were once smaller and that means we are moving away from where we were.

No, not that we (if "we" is all matter and energy) were smaller, that we were closer together. Take a look at this image here.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Where's the point of origin there? If you look closely, all four galaxies are the exact same size as the beginning (maybe a little less spin), and the distances between each are multiplied by some constant.

If you want an extremely simple explanation of it, Simple Wikipedia is good. I also found this series of images that explain it well.

[Il Palazzo]

Man, you're testing me.

The thing is, you CAN'T observe that effect, because there IS no point of origin. If there was one, then it would be true, but because there is none, you just can't. You are trying to observe movement away from a point that doesn't exist.

If there is no point of origin, then we are not expanding and the big bang is false.  The Big bang itself says we were once smaller and that means we are moving away from where we were.

You yourself were once smaller. Can you point to any one cell in your body that is the center of you, from which you expanded?

I don't understand your "data set is too small" point. We've got data from galaxies as far as +10 billion light years away from us, nerly from the edge of the observable universe. What more data you can ask for?

But they wouldn't move in any other way than radially. Their position on the sky wouldn't change. I could draw more points and more lines on that picture, and they would all follow the same set of rules. Their movement would be proportional to their distance from you, and it'd look like they're receeding from you, regardless of which point you're standing at.

But at different speeds away from you... if they were radial, the shifts would be the same, but then the whole idea that Andromeda sees the same radial expansion would mean that stars would collide due to all the galaxies expanding away from each other.  It can't be radial expansion for every point within.  Not if it stays consistent in the sky.  If the expansion was radial, it would appear to shift in the sky depending on which star you were on.  In order for that to work, everything would have to expand away from each other at different speeds and that should be measurable.

They do move at different speeds. The farther something is, the higher the speed(there is more space to expand).
I completely fail to follow the conclusion of stars colliding.
And as I said, all you need to do to test that it works, and produce the results we postulated it should produce, is to play with the cartesian coordinate system.

In the pictures that Il Palazzo provided earlier, the redshifts should be different between D1 and D2 (and D3, but that should be "closer" do D1 than D2 is.  D2 is inherently growing slower than D1 and D3 by simple geometry.)

They are different. The point at the end of D1 is farther away than the one at the end of D2, so it got redshifted more(there was more space created between).
This is measurable, and it's exactly the basis of the expanding universe theory. It shows that everything is receeding away from you(the observer).

[ECrownofFire]

You have to understand, the universe is not expanding at a constant rate, it's at a constant acceleration. The universe is expanding faster and faster over time, due to it being multiplied by 2 every X years. It's exponential.

[Andir]

Look at Crown's image... Let's say we are the green galaxy.  We started off pretty close to all the others, but if you look at the later time frame, The yellow is MUCH farther away now than the blue one  This should reflect in a greater redshift (I'm using the current model and the current theories here... don't mistake that) than the blue one.  If you wait a few years and measure it again that difference in that part of the sky should be greater still than the blue galaxy part of the sky.  This tells us that our previous origin was toward the yellow, more than the blue.

[Phmcw]

May I point out that, beside what our mathematical point is, we are using a toy model light years away of what the current model of space topology are, despite what I said earlier.
I should have said that this explanation was the closest you could get to current model while staying with more or less Newtonian physics.

This tells us that our previous origin was toward the yellow, more than the blue.

Yes, that it does. But how does this involve a center? imagine that you have galaxies until you loose them of sigh. How would kowing you were nearer to near galaxies help you to find a center?

[ECrownofFire]

Look at Crown's image... Let's say we are the green galaxy.  We started off pretty close to all the others, but if you look at the later time frame, The yellow is MUCH farther away now than the blue one  This should reflect in a greater redshift (I'm using the current model and the current theories here... don't mistake that) than the blue one.  If you wait a few years and measure it again that difference in that part of the sky should be greater still than the blue galaxy part of the sky.  This tells us that our previous origin was toward the yellow, more than the blue.

Okay, so you were closer to the yellow several years ago than the blue, now what does that have to do with a center?

[Il Palazzo]

Look at Crown's image... Let's say we are the green galaxy.  We started off pretty close to all the others, but if you look at the later time frame, The yellow is MUCH farther away now than the blue one  This should reflect in a greater redshift (I'm using the current model and the current theories here... don't mistake that) than the blue one.  If you wait a few years and measure it again that difference in that part of the sky should be greater still than the blue galaxy part of the sky.  This tells us that our previous origin was toward the yellow, more than the blue.

This fails to take account for all the galaxies that are not on the picture - i.e. the possibly infinite expanse of galaxies from which you can take the measurements. There is another galaxy that has got just as much redshift as the yellow one, only in the exactly opposite direction. Where is your point of origin now?

[Il Palazzo]

I did not insult you, just pointed that you obviously misunderstand the underlying theory.
Yo can go on and on, but basically you don't understand the concept of expansion, and fail to visualize how it would apply to space.
Beside your proposition for an "experimental proof" are made without so much as an inch of research on actual astronomy.
I said that you should take a course on the matter if you are really interested and actually think yours ideas are worth two cent, and I rest my case.

But instead you choose to be offended, well go for it.

If you'd understand the theory, you would not search for a center of the expansion, which make no sense at all.

You know, this is a good point to get back on topic from.
Basically, this is the case with religion's appeal to the people who fail to understand the world as it's described by science. And it's getting harder and harder as the discoveries move into more esoteric fields. The good example is the case of the expansion of the universe we've got here. Can you expect your average human beings to waste time on rewiring their brains away from what the common sense dictates to them? They just don't have time, are not interested in that. They want easy answers that fit their existing perceptions of the world, and in this field science is just not able to compete with religion.
Now, there's a lot of atheists that are of the opinion that the continuing existence of religion is causing harm to the world. So I ask you this: what would you offer to the "masses" that would be consistent with the scientific outlook, and satisfying enough to make the religion obsolete?

Here is a somewhat relevant, and somewhat questionable, proposition:
http://fora.tv/2010/07/29/Nomad_From_Islam_to_America_with_Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali#Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali_on_Converting_Muslims_to_Christianity
It assumes that there are "better" and "worse" religious systems, and proposes to simply choose the most harmless as the officially sanctioned one.

[Andir]

Look at Crown's image... Let's say we are the green galaxy.  We started off pretty close to all the others, but if you look at the later time frame, The yellow is MUCH farther away now than the blue one  This should reflect in a greater redshift (I'm using the current model and the current theories here... don't mistake that) than the blue one.  If you wait a few years and measure it again that difference in that part of the sky should be greater still than the blue galaxy part of the sky.  This tells us that our previous origin was toward the yellow, more than the blue.

This fails to take account for all the galaxies that are not on the picture - i.e. the possibly infinite expanse of galaxies from which you can take the measurements. There is another galaxy that has got just as much redshift as the yellow one, only in the exactly opposite direction. Where is your point of origin now?

It gives us a vector of expansion... you can point to at least two points in the sky and say, "There is where we were or where we are going." instead of saying, "It doesn't matter." (Which is what people are saying now, and I think that's wrong for someone who truly believes to be seeking the true nature to say.)  With a bit more observation, you can likely get a trajectory of those stars 90 degrees off that line and determine what direction we are heading.

The "center" being the origin of the big bang.

[Il Palazzo]

Man, but it always points exactly toward where you're standing, wherever you go to. You are the center of the universe! Unless you've got a really bad case of megalomania, you should see the ridiculousness of such a conclusion.

[Phmcw]

You would be at the center, always, because it is a global expansion.
Actually, it's the other way around. because that vector is us, we theorized that the universe is in global expansion.

[Andir]

Man, but it always points exactly toward where you're standing, wherever you go to. You are the center of the universe! Unless you've got a really bad case of megalomania, you should see the ridiculousness of such a conclusion.

You just said the yellow galaxy and another galaxy opposite that are the two most red shifted galaxies and that gave me two points to draw a vector on (that goes through me or damn close.)   This gives me a line of our travel away from the origin of the big bang... and now you are going to tell me that you are taking that back?  (I thought I was getting somewhere...)