Hi

Interesting..
Can you post the original link to the nasa website providing this picture ?
Thanks

Sweet
And scary……

It also illustrates the fatal flaw of the big bang theory. You see, the universe is supposed to be somewhat less than 13,4 billion years old. In one direction we can see > 13 billion light years.

That would mean we should be right at the edge of the universe. So let’s look entirely the other way. How far can we see ? 13,1 billion light years (at last measurement).

So we can see 2 objects that are, at least, 26 billion light years apart, and we know they did not take more than 13 billion light years to get there. That also means that they have an average speed of 2*c relative to one another.

So in reality you have a choice to make. Either Einstein is right, or the big bang theory, but not both.

Also if you were to calculate the exact center of the universe using these 2 objects, it would be very close. A few million light years. Closer to our galaxy than to any other. The more objects you take into account, however, the closer to earth you will find the center of the universe. The ASSUMPTION of the cosmological principle states that every location in the universe is the center of the universe (which would mean that there are infinite numbers of stars in any direction, therefore, anyone would be able to see 13 billion light years in every direction, see no density differences, and correctly conclude he’s the center of it all, no matter where he’s located, because he’s merely concluding that he’s the center of all objects that he can see).

If the universe was not infinitely large there would have to be measurable density differences (e.g. more density in the center, less at the edge is what you’d expect in any explosion). We do see that, so the universe should be infinite. But on the other hand, creating an infinite universe, obviously requires infinite energy, another blatant violation of physical principles.

But science is like law, it is necessarily either incomplete or inconsistent (Godel’s theorem). Fortunately, we have equally good politicians and religious idiots as we have scientists : like law and religion, science is BOTH incomplete and inconsistent, even if it’s a bit more useful in the engineering department than the former 2 concepts.

But the creation of the universe is a huge problem. The current theory needs exceptions on a few little rules :
-> causality (obviously the creation of time is an event without a cause)
-> conservation of energy (and conservation of just about anything)
-> relativity theory (since it requires object moving faster than light speed)
-> gravity (if the universe was created inside a mass denser than a black hole, how did it ever get out ?)
I’m quite sure I don’t have the full list enumerated here.

Something to think about.

That’s just the BB theory, you should check out the Big Crunch theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch)

Big Crunch FTW.
Also check out string theory. And both Einstein and Big Bang Theory are probably wrong.

Silence

You do not know that they are 26 billion lightyears apart, since galaxies move in space, and quite rapidly so (not that physical speed is really relevant on this level). This means that they two galaxies you compare, may be closer to each other, than they are to us. Also, the light moving away from a galaxy as it moves away from us, will have travelled towards us for as long as the galaxy has been moving away from us. The light does not wait for the galaxy to arrive at it’s location 13.4 billion lightyears away, and THEN start it’s journey towards us; it happens simultaneously. Like watching the lights from a car, moving away from us. You see the lights as the car moves away, you don’t have to wait for the car to arrive at its destination before you see it.

So -your- theory is also flawed.

If you believe that our galaxy is close to the centre of the universe, the above description makes perfect sense. If all the galaxies originated in a single location, and you consider the path said galaxies took as a ‘V’ with the bottom of the V being the origin. We would be in the middle of that V, and every galaxy would have sent light in every direction. Thus the galaxies at the left and right top of the V would have sent its light towards us ever since we originated from the same spot, which would have been about 13 billions years ago. Ergo, the ligth would have travelled 13 billion lightyears from all locations in all directions. So think of it more as a massive race, where everyone fires at each other constantly from start to finish. The universe may very well be over 26 billion lightyears across, but that does not mean that any light has travelled that length (it probably hasn’t), it only means that we’ve been getting hit by the “fire” since the start, from all directions.

Hope that makes sense.

Also, since what we see is really the past, predictions of the current state of the universe are quite difficult to make, including size and location.

And last but not least: if the universe is infinitely large, it would have to be infinitely old (since everything is moving). So the energy required to create such a universe is irrelevant. Time is most likely not a linear concept, but rather a circle (big crunch theory makes more sense in this particular aspect).

“You do not know that they are 26 billion lightyears apart, since galaxies move in space, and quite rapidly so (not that physical speed is really relevant on this level). This means that they two galaxies you compare, may be closer to each other, than they are to us. ”

Yes, why don’t we change -without any proof or test- our idea of physical reality. What if space is bent around like crazy -without presenting us with obvious giveaways of such bending ?

Your theory is correct in that it cannot be falsified for total lack of evidence and/or predictions. Unfortunately, so is “God did it”, or for that matter “Homer Simpson did it”. That something could explain something does not make it right.

Perhaps 1=0. That would certainly explain these problems and more, and it is an explanation that is exactly as valuable as yours.

The sad thing is, that we can’t prove, even in pure mathematics that 1 is different from 0. Such things are classified as obviously false (much like theories without predictive value), but unprovable.

“Also, the light moving away from a galaxy as it moves away from us, will have travelled towards us for as long as the galaxy has been moving away from us. The light does not wait for the galaxy to arrive at it’s location 13.4 billion lightyears away, and THEN start it’s journey towards us; it happens simultaneously. Like watching the lights from a car, moving away from us. You see the lights as the car moves away, you don’t have to wait for the car to arrive at its destination before you see it.”

Indeed, today those galaxies would be even further away. That unfortunately does not help your case at all. Those galaxies were quite far apart a very, very long time ago. The reason we only see their light now is that their speed relative to us was already close to the light speed.

Unfortunately their speed relative to one another would be much, much more than c, the so-called maximum possible speed. Relative to one another they’re moving at a not much less than 2*c, which is impossible. This also indicates that it is not only possible to move faster than light, it is possible to do it for billions of years, and therefore, once accelerated to such a speed, does not require energy input to maintain said speed.

That something is expanding, even at an ever-increasing rate (which is the definition of the concept of “infinite”) does not make it require infinite energy. Suppose something expanded according to the simple formula 2-(1/t) where t gives time. It would always expand, at every single moment in time, the object is growing. It is eternally expanding in size, yet it does not require infinite amounts of energy to expand like that. And given that the expansion of the universe has been slowing down, it might very well obey a formula like that, and be an eternal structure. You can have objects expand at ever increasing rates too, without requiring infinite energy, but you’ll need more complex formulas to describe them e.g. (-1)^t * t, which is quite a huge structure, requiring exactly 0 energy;

The real question, given the contradictions is simple : “what did we do wrong” ? Obviously something is wrong in the formulas. But what ? Obviously there must be some way to violate the second law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy, for example, or the universe could not ever have been created. Obviously it must be possible to violate the limit of light speed, or the universe would have been a whole lot smaller. Obviously it must be possible …

Predictions of the current state of the universe are simple to make : simply extrapolate. You won’t be far off. You see, you don’t just move things that are billions of times the mass of the solar system around like lego bricks. They don’t change direction, ever, unless colliding with objects of similar size and weight (and even then).

Since we’re throwing around wild theories anyway, infinitely large does not mean infinitely old. Suppose the pope is right, that God created the universe at some point in time. “And there was light”, why exactly couldn’t it be infinite ?

Even if there was such a thing as a big bang, who’s to say there was only one ? Isn’t it possible that at some point we start seeing stars, drifting into our vision, that have been created in another big bang ? It isn’t even impossible that every galactic cluster was created in it’s own big bang, and that some property of matter is stopping big-bang type explosions. Or perhaps they’re just somewhat rare, and we’ll see one in a telescope tomorrow.

It’s fun theorizing without proof or empirical evidence, only using appeals to authority. Fun … but not all that useful.

Its so sad that currently there is no way of moving at a decent speed in space, and even if we could allmost match the speed of light, if we would only go round trip to the center of our milkyway and back everyone that we know would have allready died of old agex1000 at our planet (as time slows down at high speeds).

Its so sad that carl sagan passed away, he would be fond of all the new information we gathered over the last years.

[...] how small/big we are in the universe… 23 Januari 2010 Posted by azmirul in Astronomy, Link menarik. trackback http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/images/how-small-we-are1.jpg http://www.hauwaerts.be/2009/04/16/we-are-so-tiny-physics-theory-fail/ [...]