Big bang clarification?

[origin]

However, if everything in the universe appears to be moving away from a central point of some sort...

The universe is expanding but NOT from some central point. If the universe was expanding from a central point that would easily be detectable by asymmetric recession velocities. The other possiblity (assuming a central point of expansion) is that we are the central point which is not likely at all.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

u·ni·verse
ˈyo͞onəˌvərs/Submit
noun
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.
synonyms: cosmos, macrocosm, totality; More
a particular sphere of activity, interest, or experience.
plural noun: universes
"the front parlor was the hub of her universe"
synonyms: world, sphere, domain, preserve, milieu, province
"the universe of computer hardware"
another term for universal set.
noun: universe of discourse; plural noun: universes of discourse

Is that "defined" enough for you?

Indeed - after all, we cannot "see" the edge of the universe. However, if everything in the universe appears to be moving away from a central point of some sort... it stands to reason that whatever it is containing "everything" must be expanding - either that, or stuff that reaches the edge just... what, falls off? Ceases to exist? Is abducted by aliens? What's the alternative?

The alternative is the stuff that reaches the edge as not really reached the edge, it as only reached its vanishing point to us, it does not fall off an edge, it continues on its journey through the infinite shapeless space, and we simply just can not see it any more.

The big bang is a bit like a flat earth is you ask me.

 

[Kittamaru]

The universe is expanding but NOT from some central point. If the universe was expanding from a central point that would easily be detectable by asymmetric recession velocities. The other possiblity (assuming a central point of expansion) is that we are the central point which is not likely at all.

*nods* fair enough - the expansion is not symmetric (at least, as near as we can tell); I fear, though, that attempting to process the idea that something can expand asymmetrically from different points would be far too complicated to try to explain to TC.

The alternative is the stuff that reaches the edge as not really reached the edge, it as only reached its vanishing point to us, it does not fall off an edge, it continues on its journey through the infinite shapeless space, and we simply just can not see it any more.

So where does it go... where does the light from it go? Does it just cease to be, cease to exist? Why would there be a "vanishing point" - you do understand that, when we look out into deep space, we are seeing events that have happened years to millions of years in the past, right? Because of the time it takes light to travel... I mean, a good example: The light from our own Sun takes about 8 minutes 20 seconds to reach Earth. Light from our nearest neighboring galaxy, Alpha Centauri, takes about four YEARS to get to Earth... in other words, we are seeing Alpha Centauri four YEARS in the past. The furthest known galaxy that we can see, MACS0647-JD, is 13.3 billion light years from Earth. In other words, we are seeing it as it was 13.3 billion years ago.

SOURCE - http://www.space.com/18502-farthest-galaxy-discovery-hubble-photos.html

The big bang is a bit like a flat earth is you ask me.

That doesn't make any sense... why doesn't that surprise me...

 

[theorist-constant12345]

*nods* fair enough - the expansion is not symmetric (at least, as near as we can tell); I fear, though, that attempting to process the idea that something can expand asymmetrically from different points would be far too complicated to try to explain to TC.



So where does it go... where does the light from it go? Does it just cease to be, cease to exist? Why would there be a "vanishing point" - you do understand that, when we look out into deep space, we are seeing events that have happened years to millions of years in the past, right? Because of the time it takes light to travel... I mean, a good example: The light from our own Sun takes about 8 minutes 20 seconds to reach Earth. Light from our nearest neighboring galaxy, Alpha Centauri, takes about four YEARS to get to Earth... in other words, we are seeing Alpha Centauri four YEARS in the past. The furthest known galaxy that we can see, MACS0647-JD, is 13.3 billion light years from Earth. In other words, we are seeing it as it was 13.3 billion years ago.

SOURCE - http://www.space.com/18502-farthest-galaxy-discovery-hubble-photos.html

Yes I understand the topic of in the past actions because of the time light takes to arrive. I mentioned this about mirror and seeing yourself in the past.
A star becomes so small to perspective view, the star is not seen any more, so the light that is emitted is to weak to see over distance and is washed out by our sun and other stars.
You can observe this at night over a distance using a pen torch. The pen torch light will vanish over a greater distance to the observer.

 

[OnlyMe]

... How about Nobel prizewinner Robert B Laughlin's take on it?

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum..."

Note he said space, not spacetime. Do not confuse the two. And do not dismiss what Einstein said and accuse me of reinterpretation when giving you references to his papers. You can't quote Einstein saying something that supports your understanding of general relativity, can you? No. Why not? Because your understanding is wrong.

First! What papers? The Leyden address was not a paper and his lay oriented books are not scientific papers.

Laughlin was mistaken in his interpretation of Einstein's intent. What he said was and to some extent remains a popular interpretation.., after the fact. When Einstein introduced special relativity, he did not contend that there was no such medium. That was an interpretation of the implications of his paper. What he said was that the idea of the ether or a medium was not required to explain what was known at the time. In fact the Lorentz Ether Theory stood side by side with SR until, general relativity was introduced years later. Even then the only conceptual ether that Einstein, displaced was the old fixed aether medium. That is why the idea of an relativistic ether medium continues to be reexamined, from time to time.

Continuing to present that Laughlin quote, begins to sound like an argument from authority. Which of Laughlin's published papers does it come from and what does it have to do with his Nobel prize?

You are still reinterpreting, misinterpreting and even sometimes misrepresenting references.... Why? It seems for no other reason than to support your own ideas. Not the ideas and intent of those you misinterpret and misquote.

 

[Kittamaru]

Yes I understand the topic of in the past actions because of the time light takes to arrive. I mentioned this about mirror and seeing yourself in the past.

And how long "in the past" do you think that is...? Assuming you are standing 5 foot away from the mirror, how long does it take your image to reflect back to you, hmm? You can figure that out, I'm sure... but just in case:

c = 2.998x10^8 m/s
1 meter = 3.281 feet
so c = 2.998x10^8 x 3.281 = 9.836x10^8 feet per second - for simplicities sake, we can round it to 1x10^9 f/s

1 foot over 1x10^9 ft / s = 1x10^-9 seconds, or 1 nanosecond. So, to travel the five feet and back would take about 10 nanoseconds.

Do you understand how infinitesimally small that is?

A star becomes so small to perspective view, the star is not seen any more, so the light that is emitted is to weak to see over distance and is washed out by our sun and other stars.
You can observe this at night over a distance using a pen torch. The pen torch light will vanish over a greater distance to the observer.

It will vanish because of ambient light, the atmospheric diffusion, et al... you realize that your analogy doesn't apply in space at all, right?

There IS, however, a point at which we can no longer detect the photons emitted by a star. However, that doesn't mean that that point is the "edge" of the universe.

 

[origin]

The alternative is the stuff that reaches the edge as not really reached the edge, it as only reached its vanishing point to us,

I think you mean if a star is far enough away from us there will not be enough photons from the star entering our eyes to see it. That is correct. You are using the term 'vanishing point' incorrectly making you post confusing. You really do not need to add confusion to your posts by using words you do not understand.

The big bang is a bit like a flat earth is you ask me.

This is just another reason why people don't ask you anything.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

And how long "in the past" do you think that is...? Assuming you are standing 5 foot away from the mirror, how long does it take your image to reflect back to you, hmm? You can figure that out, I'm sure.



It will vanish because of ambient light, the atmospheric diffusion, et al... you realize that your analogy doesn't apply in space at all, right?

If you consider the analogy it represent vanishing points and atmospheric diffusion, there is no need to consider that in space that vanishing points are any different to that on earth.

The analogy shows the process and is a simple comparison to a weak light by distance.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I think you mean if a star is far enough away from us there will not be enough photons from the star entering our eyes to see it. That is correct. You are using the term 'vanishing point' incorrectly making you post confusing. You really do not need to add confusion to your posts by using words you do not understand.

This is just another reason why people don't ask you anything.

Matter reflects light, matter vanishes as well has stars.

 

[Kristoffer]

Pretty sure plenty of people have asked him why he refuses to learn as well as why he continues to spout gibberish.

 

[origin]

Matter reflects light, matter vanishes as well has stars.

The matter does not vanish it is simply too far away to see.

 

[Kittamaru]

Matter reflects light, matter vanishes as well has stars.

Uh huh... so matter can just "poof" huh?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

The matter does not vanish it is simply too far away to see.

It vanishes from sight, we are talking about perspective view. Yes exactly though, it vanishes from sight, we just can not see it but it is still there.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Uh huh... so matter can just "poof" huh?

Ask someone to hold up a match stick and walk away from you, tell them to stop when it vanishes relative to your sight.

And how long "in the past" do you think that is...? Assuming you are standing 5 foot away from the mirror, how long does it take your image to reflect back to you, hmm? You can figure that out, I'm sure... but just in case:

c = 2.998x10^8 m/s
1 meter = 3.281 feet
so c = 2.998x10^8 x 3.281 = 9.836x10^8 feet per second - for simplicities sake, we can round it to 1x10^9 f/s

1 foot over 1x10^9 ft / s = 1x10^-9 seconds, or 1 nanosecond. So, to travel the five feet and back would take about 10 nanoseconds.

Do you understand how infinitesimally small that is?

I understand it is small.

 

[Kittamaru]

Ask someone to hold up a match stick and walk away from you, tell them to stop when it vanishes relative to your sight.

That doesn't mean that the match has gone away though, and with any kind of optical enhancement I would be able to see it for longer. Not to mention that the relative light of the area will have an affect on this (ergo, if it is daylight, the light of the match will disappear sooner than if it were night)

I understand it is small.

Then you understand you aren't seeing yourself in the past in any significant way, right?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

That doesn't mean that the match has gone away though, and with any kind of optical enhancement I would be able to see it for longer. Not to mention that the relative light of the area will have an affect on this (ergo, if it is daylight, the light of the match will disappear sooner than if it were night)



Then you understand you aren't seeing yourself in the past in any significant way, right?

Exactly that, when matter expands into space beyond our lens capabilities it is still there but not observed.


And yes I understand past and present and future.

I am avoiding talking about that wrong section,

 

[PhysBang]

There is no evidence that space is moving away from us, all observation is of matter moving away through space.

You seem to have a confusing view of observation.

What is actually recorded is the flux of light at different wavelengths. That is the "observation".

These lights are tied to specific stars or galaxies through well supported theory.

These stars or galaxies are tied to distances through well supported theory.

This establishes a relationship between redshift and distance.

What we do with that depends on the theory we then apply. So far, the bet supported theory to explain that relationship is general relativity, which allows us to describe relative position via the underlying (and changing) geometry of space and time.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You seem to have a confusing view of observation.

What is actually recorded is the flux of light at different wavelengths. That is the "observation".

These lights are tied to specific stars or galaxies through well supported theory.

These stars or galaxies are tied to distances through well supported theory.

This establishes a relationship between redshift and distance.

What we do with that depends on the theory we then apply. So far, the bet supported theory to explain that relationship is general relativity, which allows us to describe relative position via the underlying (and changing) geometry of space and time.

I agree with everything you said in the post with an exception, in my opinion it is not a geometry of space and time that is changed, it is relative position to and of each matter or galaxy that is been observed, the space in no way alters except a distance change of the objects, the relative motion of the objects making relative space, no different than lifting an object making a space. The space does not alter except for occupying of matter or empty of matter.

 

[Kittamaru]

Exactly that, when matter expands into space beyond our lens capabilities it is still there but not observed.


And yes I understand past and present and future.

I am avoiding talking about that wrong section,

So, then, where is the "end" of the universe?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

So, then, where is the "end" of the universe?

Depending on use of Universe and the Universe being just the space, it is infinite because the box in the box analogy shows us this to be true.