Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|FINITE SOMETHING/INFINITE NOTHING
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by William G Melchiorsen Jr on September 30, 1998 17:37:36 UTC
: : : : :
: : : : : The Big Bang (BB) theory postulates an explosion of space (nothingness) itself, not an explosion of matter into space. In the latter case, it would be possible to analyse the motions of galaxies and determine where, in space, the explosion occured. In other words, it would be possible to find the center of the universe.
: : : : : In the former case, there is a limited amount of space, but it is expanding. Inside the universe there is matter and there is space. Outside the universe there is... ( ? !! ? ).
: : : : : Since we SEEM to be at the center of currently observed motion (the "velocity of recession interpretation" of observed redshift data), and since it's very unlikely that this is acutally the case, BB assumes that any obesrver anywhere in the universe would also see their location as the center of motion. (We have no choice but to ASSUME this until we can actually go somewhere else in the universe to see if it's really true. Stand by.)
: : : : : According to most cosmologists today, the most likely explanation for all observers seeming to see their location as the center of motion is the expansion of space itself.
: : : : : The usual analogy offered to help visualize this is to place several marks on the surface of a balloon. These marks represent stars or galaxies. As the balloon is inflated more and more, the skin of the balloon stretches and the marks get further and further appart. Note that the marks themselves also get larger as the various parts of each mark move away from each other. This analogy is not bad, depending on how well you can translate it in your head from two dimensions to three dimensions.
: : : : : This expansion is counteracted by the attractive force of gravity. This force is assumed to have infinite range (stand by as above for confirmation), and the question of how long expansion will continue depends on the total mass of the universe. If that total is below a certain critical value, the universe will expand forever. If it is below the critical value, expansion will halt some day and then the universe will begin contracting (ultimately ending in a Big Crunch?). If it is exactly at the critical value, the universe expands more and more slowly, forever, getting so close to zero that we might not be able to measure the diffenerce, but never quite stops.
: : : : : Current observations indicate that the total mass of the universe its less than 10 percent of the critical value. The universe will expand forever if this is correct.
: : : : : And if the Big Bang is correct. And if gravity's range is really infinite.
: : : : : Unless there is a significant amount of Dark Matter in the universe. But that is another story for another day.
: : : : : : : : : : Do you mean to tell me that our top scientists accept a theory (BB) that assumes matter came (exploded out of) from nothingness? Is this what the BB postulates? Then no wonder I could never understand it, who can? It makes NO SENSE! : : : : You must be mistaken! All this time I thought they believed in a cyclic type of BB universe which makes more sense but is still impossible due to the amount of matter and the distance it is scattered though (infinite space)! : : : : There is no center to nothingness, and the only markers we have are matter itself, so to say that there is a center is ridiculous! Red shift/blue shift whatever, and I don't mean to downplay the work of all the scientists, because it is important and I : : : : revere them for thier contributions and dedication and calling, it is just the way I talk, many have told me I am abrasive in using others ideas..... : : : : As far as explaining age, galaxies, black holes... are born, live, die all the time thoughout the sea of nothingness, some are probably 100 times the age of our own galaxy, but given universal time scales we see as humans only a billionth of a second out of (seemingly) eternity! Even geologic time is hard for us to comprehend, that is just a drop in the sea. : : : : Dark matter, is that the stuff we have'nt figured yet? I think it is in some form of neutral energy partical spread throughout space which reacts in a static/friction way with matter as it moves though it.
: : : : Freinds?
: : : : Billy (just an older college student, married, two young'ens, atheist, humanist, newby to science, to old really, but will get involved with classes, disscusions...)
: : : : Can't respond very often, to many irons in the fire...
: : : : :) Not very good on this dagblnged computer info hyway, can't even chat, I'm just to slow...
: : : : Later!
: : : #######################################
: : : I read most of the responses to teng's question and was : : : disappointed at how many of them were : : : inaccurate conjecture. BILLY, you obviously : : : don't have the SLIGHTEST bit of knowledge on this matter : : : and shouldn't have attempted to answer the question. : : : For example nothing is even CLOSE to 100x the age of our : : : galaxy. The Universe is only about 15billion yrs.old : : : and our sun is about 5 billion yrs old. : : : I have studied this material, as it seems larry has, : : : and can say that larry has pretty much hit the nail : : : on the head. So teng, from now on i would suggest : : : emailing an astronomer at a local college w/ your : : : Qs b/c it seems that any moron can convince himself : : : he knows what he's talking about and won't be afraid : : : to spread his ignorance.
: : It seems to me that as we reach farther and farther out from our planet, we find : : that indeed things are older than we thought, are you saying that we went from : : thinking the universe/earth was 5000k to 5 bil in : : one step?
: : Yoy also did not explain how you propose to get nothing from somthing as you : : stated the BB proposes.
: : Of course I can understand how you see those who agree with you as : : highly intelligent or well read and those who differ in oppinion : : as a moron, I was once egotistical myself.
: : Finally, do you have all the answers, are your theories proven? : : Is steve hawkins your priest? How closed minded are you to : : even the disscusion of differing views, and does your grandfather : : own this nice little forum?
: : Insults only serve to negative ends, and even Einstien was ridiculed : : for many years by teachers, peers and assosiates. : : billy :(
: : I'll be suprised if anyone gets this far reading all of that. BB - Some people MIGHT think it exploded out of nothing, they are wrong. If it exploded, it exploded out of something. And obviously SOME of the universe will collapse on it's self and the outer parts of the universe will continue on there marry way forever. But what makes you think that there is a limit to the amount of matter in the universe? When you say universe are you really talking about ALL MATER? Why would there only be a limited amount of matter, that doesn't make sense to me at all.
THIS IS SOMETHING I THOUGHT I HAD FIGURED OUT IN MY HEAD, I THOUGHT IT WENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS: SINCE THERE IS NO END TO THE NOTHINGNESS OF SPACE, AND ONLY A TINY FRACTION OF IT IS TAKEN UP, MEANING THAT COMPAIRED TO THE DISTANCES BETWEEN LARGE AREAS OF MATTER, MATTER ITSELF IS FINITE. HOWEVER, i DO SEE WHAT YOU MEAN, IF THE SPACE GOES ON FOREVER, THEN SO CAN MATTER. MY BIGGEST ARGUMENT IS THAT MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, THEREFORE IF THERE CAN BE NO MORE OF IT MADE, IT MUST HAVE A LIMIT. ALTHOUGH WE'LL NEVER SEE IT, OR THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT CAN BE CREATED, BUT FROM WHAT? THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING ELSE IN EXISTANCE MUCH MORE THAN NOTHINGNESS, NATURALLY NEUTRAL PARTICALS SO SMALL THAT WE MIGHT NEVER DETECT THEM? BUT THEM IF WE CALLED THEM ANTI-MATTER WE COULD THEN SAY THAT THE COMBINATION OF MATTER AND ANTI-MATTER IS FINITE. SO REALLY THAT IS WHAT I BASE MY GUESS UPON. HOW CAN YOU ARGUE THAT IT IS INFINITE?
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins