The universe expands ...

[tillingborn]

I don't buy the background radiation, being anything more than from current and past stars. It has nothing to do with a bang, other than its where the stars supposedly come from.

I agree , the most ridiculous statement I heard about the CBR was
we see it whatever direction we look , it's all around us the same image ,???
thats pathetic , if it was real and the image of the early universe ,
it would be in one spot , you would have to look in the right direction ,
the fact that the image can be generated pointing your telescope anywhere you like ,
makes it obvious that the effect is something else entirely,

From what I understand, the view we have of the cosmic background radiation is essentially the inner surface of a sphere. In every direction we look, we can see photons that have been travelling towards us for over 13 billion years. We cannot see beyond that, because the photons involved were the very first to escape the seething heat and density of the early universe, I think the term is decoupling. It happened at a fairly specific temperature, which is why the photons all look the same/have the same energy. There may be plenty more universe beyond that shell and the thinking is that anyone at the extreme of our vision could look out and see the same as us. The reason being that if you can imagine the universe the size of a golf ball, the bit we can see may have been only a millimetre across and it has spent the last 13.7 billion years getting bigger. Next to our millimetre was another one that has also spent the last 13.7 billion years getting bigger. Whether what we can see is all of the universe, as far as I can tell, depends on whether there is enough mass to make all the photons go round in circles, more or less.
In other words, we can only see 13 odd billion light years away, because any light from further away hasn't had time to get here. Our picture of the universe will grow with time, but the most distant thing we will ever be able to see is the cosmic microwave background radiation and that will always be as far away as the universe is old.
There is an element of truth in Godfree's tired photon hypothesis in that the energy of the radiation does decrease as the wavelength increases. Suppose photons were ping-pong balls being thrown at you, if suddenly twice as many are being thrown you will absorb twice as much energy, even though the individual ping-pong balls aren't going any faster. Thanks to Newton, we know that a moving ping-pong ball will not stop unless something gets in the way; on Earth they have to contend with air resistance and a strong gravitational field. In space it would carry on forever, so too photons. They don't get tired.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I don't buy the background radiation, being anything more than from current and past stars. It has nothing to do with a bang, other than its where the stars supposedly come from.

I agree , the most ridiculous statement I heard about the CBR was
we see it whatever direction we look , it's all around us the same image ,???
thats pathetic , if it was real and the image of the early universe ,
it would be in one spot , you would have to look in the right direction ,
the fact that the image can be generated pointing your telescope anywhere you like ,
makes it obvious that the effect is something else entirely,

From what I understand, the view we have of the cosmic background radiation is essentially the inner surface of a sphere.
Tillingborn, I will make my points per sentence for clarity's sake.
How can it possibly be determined, that it's not just distant stars or something else?

In every direction we look, we can see photons that have been travelling towards us
In what ways can one interpret omnidirectional incoming radiation?

for over 13 billion years.
Have we captured one of these photons, and found a "created on xx/xx/xx PBB," stamp? (where the x's are numbers with exponents and PBB = Post Big Bang.)

We cannot see beyond that, because the photons involved were the very first to escape the seething heat and density of the early universe, I think the term is decoupling.
Again, how can one know any particular photons age or origin? A photon is a photon after all.

It happened at a fairly specific temperature, which is why the photons all look the same/have the same energy.
And what temperature might that be? Can there be alternative explanations for similar behavior?

There may be plenty more universe beyond that shell and the thinking is that anyone at the extreme of our vision could look out and see the same as us.
Thanks for conveying honesty with the inclusion of "may." Yes, I agree, this may be the case.

The reason being that if you can imagine the universe the size of a golf ball, the bit we can see may have been only a millimetre across and it has spent the last 13.7 billion years getting bigger. Next to our millimetre was another one that has also spent the last 13.7 billion years getting bigger.
OK, so if the universe is getting bigger, expanding, why is this, so called, CBR, emanating from the extremities of the universe towards the center? Was the Big Bang not really a Big Explosion, but rather A Big Implosion? To me all this reeks of pre-Copernican ideology, by some, would be, religious figure.

Whether what we can see is all of the universe, as far as I can tell, depends on whether there is enough mass to make all the photons go round in circles, more or less.
Do you think it would be easy to do maths to create a model, that could explain possibility, if one merely hasn't the technology, to see further, as a means to neatly tie this potential inability with a bow?

In other words, we can only see 13 odd billion light years away, because any light from further away hasn't had time to get here.
Isn't the term "observable universe" independent of our technical abilities at detecting radiation at a given distance, or our knowing that there's anything necessarily there to detect? Isn't it simply that, in principle, it's possible for earth dwellers to sense such signals from a distance of 13 billion light years, assuming that's the age of the universe?

Our picture of the universe will grow with time,
But how could one know this, as some regions of the universe are believed to be moving away from us, faster than the speed of light, thus we shall never be capable of sensing them? In the case of ever increasing expansion, Isn't it true that the future does not include more but rather less to be sensed?

but the most distant thing we will ever be able to see is the cosmic microwave background radiation and that will always be as far away as the universe is old.
Assuming the CBR's origin, and universe's age?

There is an element of truth in Godfree's tired photon hypothesis in that the energy of the radiation does decrease as the wavelength increases. Suppose photons were ping-pong balls being thrown at you, if suddenly twice as many are being thrown you will absorb twice as much energy, even though the individual ping-pong balls aren't going any faster. Thanks to Newton, we know that a moving ping-pong ball will not stop unless something gets in the way; on Earth they have to contend with air resistance and a strong gravitational field. In space it would carry on forever, so too photons. They don't get tired.
Yes I know that a single fart could propel me around the entirety of the universe, If I could live an eternity, with no needs other than a vacuum, and plot a course of no unwanted gravitational, explosive, magnetic, radiated or impact entanglements.

My arguments, have never been necessarily for lack of understanding of what one can read about such theories, but rather that what they believe are the cases, are not necessarily the only possibilities. For instance, my favorite example is that of, "sudden expansion," which was only arrived at as a result of, "making things fit," when they wouldn't otherwise. Instead of asking which element of theory might be incorrect and adjusting, they instead, added some more conjecture.

[Godfree]

Question oh wise one,
why are galaxies like a bubble , a fairly abrupt end to the matter ,
not slowly less and less material that one might expect to see if it were coming in from outside ,
no more bubble like with a round shape and each is separate ,
like the shape you would expect if the galaxy went bang ,
and the matter was held in the bubble by the gravity of the black hole ,
isn't that the image we see , something that looks like the matter all came from the black hole ,
popped out until the gravity stopped it's progress ,
if galaxies were formed by some big bang and the material gravitated into galaxies ,
then there would be less clear separation and no big voids inbetween ,
I think the proof galaxies go bang is in their shape ,
and the Crab Nebula , may be the result of a galaxy going bang , not a supernova ,
not a single sun producing then millions of suns,?? that doesn't make sense ,
a galaxy going bang would then be making millions of new stars ,,!!![/quote]
As to the sarcasm of "oh wise one," I hope it was not directed at me, as "I'm just a clown in the eyes of the world" - lyrics from a song titled "In the Eyes of the World" by "The Flower Kings" off the album "Stardust We Are" (disc1).

But I will try and provide something for you to chew on. How big is big and how small is small. Is there a maximum size that stars can be, and what if at that size the core goes critical really fast, which is the theory, while much more H2 is in the vicinity, such that after it collapses into a black hole, with all that gravitational pull, and we know they can spin, like a pulsar/neutron star, which are also remnants of a super-duper-nova. i mean, I can see that it's a possibility. Bang/nova whats the difference? Novas go bang, that's for sure, though one may never hear it. You know that's a good question, why "Big Bang" as bang conjures up the notion of sound, the gun went bang, not in the vacuum of space it doesn't. I would have called it "the initial explosion," straight to the point.

So is it something in space that limits the size of stars, (Dark something), or the size of it's constituents, atoms. Why are there stars of varying size in any particular pillar of creation, that has more H2 than is used in any particular star? Proximity alone? I've wondered why things seem to coalesce around any particular point, such that I wonder if there is some very small amount, of some element unknown to man, that is the densest by far, that pulls all the H2 together, then once the pressure exceeds a certain point, bang, ignition! Or the question could be, how concentrated (dense) does a certain area of H2 got to be that it attracts all the rest of the H2? And is that all there is to it?[/quote]

No sarcasm , I do consider you wise , and at least prepared to consider others wisdom ,
so oh great clown in the eyes of the world ,and I disagree , some may see you as that ,
but others like myself can read between the lines and recognize intelligence when we see it ,
so questions ,
How many black holes does it take to make a bang ,
How much pressure is required to cause the explosion , and can size be the determining factor ,
or could other factors be involved such as a collision with another black hole ,
one problem I have with Supernova;s being the thing that goes bang ,
is they won't have that much H2 spare lying around after burning most of it up ,
in it's own life cycle , suns get down to burning helium then on to heavier elements ,
not much H2 left , I think in order for matter to be returned to H2 ,
it needs the crushing power of a black hole , ,
so as you suggested above it may be a large sun that collapses into a black hole to then go bang ,
but I can't see the process making sense without the compression faze ...

[Godfree]

I don't buy the background radiation, being anything more than from current and past stars. It has nothing to do with a bang, other than its where the stars supposedly come from.

I agree , the most ridiculous statement I heard about the CBR was
we see it whatever direction we look , it's all around us the same image ,???
thats pathetic , if it was real and the image of the early universe ,
it would be in one spot , you would have to look in the right direction ,
the fact that the image can be generated pointing your telescope anywhere you like ,
makes it obvious that the effect is something else entirely,

From what I understand, the view we have of the cosmic background radiation is essentially the inner surface of a sphere. In every direction we look, we can see photons that have been travelling towards us for over 13 billion years. We cannot see beyond that, because the photons involved were the very first to escape the seething heat and density of the early universe, I think the term is decoupling. It happened at a fairly specific temperature, which is why the photons all look the same/have the same energy. There may be plenty more universe beyond that shell and the thinking is that anyone at the extreme of our vision could look out and see the same as us. The reason being that if you can imagine the universe the size of a golf ball, the bit we can see may have been only a millimetre across and it has spent the last 13.7 billion years getting bigger. Next to our millimetre was another one that has also spent the last 13.7 billion years getting bigger. Whether what we can see is all of the universe, as far as I can tell, depends on whether there is enough mass to make all the photons go round in circles, more or less.
In other words, we can only see 13 odd billion light years away, because any light from further away hasn't had time to get here. Our picture of the universe will grow with time, but the most distant thing we will ever be able to see is the cosmic microwave background radiation and that will always be as far away as the universe is old.
There is an element of truth in Godfree's tired photon hypothesis in that the energy of the radiation does decrease as the wavelength increases. Suppose photons were ping-pong balls being thrown at you, if suddenly twice as many are being thrown you will absorb twice as much energy, even though the individual ping-pong balls aren't going any faster. Thanks to Newton, we know that a moving ping-pong ball will not stop unless something gets in the way; on Earth they have to contend with air resistance and a strong gravitational field. In space it would carry on forever, so too photons. They don't get tired.

Yes they do , light is a form of energy go back to the basics , you can't get something from nothing ,
to maintain that light beam you need energy , energy that will eventually decay ,
there is no way to produce unlimited energy for nothing ,
to send a light beam to infinity , would need an infinite amount of power ,
Now this "we are looking at the inside of a sphere " ,,
that would be a flat surface , not some football shaped thing that is supposed to be ,
the image of the bang before it has got large and engulfed us ,
reading your post sounded like a collection of nonsensical unrelated claims ,
a pile of gobbledegook , jiberish , it didn't make any sense to me ,,!!

[tillingborn]

Yes they do ,

There is no evidence that they do. As SpheresOfBalance rather splendidly put it:

Yes I know that a single fart could propel me around the entirety of the universe,

Without anything to stop it, an object carries on forever. There is no evidence that photons are any different.

light is a form of energy go back to the basics , you can't get something from nothing ,
to maintain that light beam you need energy , energy that will eventually decay ,
there is no way to produce unlimited energy for nothing ,
to send a light beam to infinity , would need an infinite amount of power ,

If you shine a torch, it is true that the battery will eventually run down. However, the evidence is that the photons it emits will keep going until they hit something.

reading your post sounded like a collection of nonsensical unrelated claims ,
a pile of gobbledegook , jiberish , it didn't make any sense to me ,,!!

Sorry about that Godfree, I'm trying my best.

[attofishpi]

If you shine a torch, it is true that the battery will eventually run down. However, the evidence is that the photons it emits will keep going until they hit something.

And then what happens to these 'photons'?

[tillingborn]

If you shine a torch, it is true that the battery will eventually run down. However, the evidence is that the photons it emits will keep going until they hit something.

And then what happens to these 'photons'?

That rather depends. One of the few things we can say with any confidence about photons is that they are not like ping-pong balls. It's not even clear that they are a form of energy, as Godfree appears to suggest, rather they transfer energy from one body to another. From what I can gather, they do this in a way that in some respects is similar to waves on water, but as Kuznetzova has pointed out in another thread, all efforts to detect the medium, the luminiferous aether, have failed.
Anyway, what actually happens to things you don't fully understand is hard to tell, but it seems that if they have the right energy to kick an electron into another orbit they get absorbed, which is what happens in the cones and rods in our retinas. The amount of energy needed to do this is very specific to elements and even molecules. In most collisions the photons simply bounce off; which is just as well, otherwise those cones and rods would be useless.

[Arising_uk]

...
Only in your mind, I have always KNOWN that females are more 'inclined' to use emoticons, to express their 'emotions' and plenty of them, as naturally they are the more emotional human, it's a fact. And no homophobia here either, I just know that this crap pisses you off, for what ever reason, and I like it!

Given that emoticons were put to use early in the Interweeb and the great bulk at that time were males I think your 'known' fact just another example of your 'intuition' at work. Add to that that I'm not female nor gay and you apparently think gays are 'females' in some way makes me think you another in a long line of those who a think 'real male' is an unemotional creature.

My daughter and gay friends think that if what you say is the case then you should stop reinforcing the stereotypes. Me, I just think you express your culture box very well.

Ditto fool! and that's the beauty!

Not quite, as your responses are pretty much what I've expect from your understanding of my words. You just appear to not like what I say and wish to claim that I don't mean them and am lying, mainly I suspect because you need to fit things to your like.

Self projection?

Nope, just an observation upon your words to me.

And so you've made up words in order to create this fantasy, of yours. The problem with your quote is that it's a victim of itself. ...

Tell me how?

You or someone has tried to reduce all the above into those few words, as if they can convey such an idea, and they don't It'll only ever be an inside meaning. ...[/color]

That you think I 'make-up' words and that what I say is exclusive just shows your issues as what I said was a pretty clear explanation of what I think about how thought, thinking, language and meaning work. Nowhere have I said that this quote is all thats needed when endeavouring to communicate ones meaning with language.

Those few words can never contain such that you have attributed, and one does such so as to pat oneself on the back, to make them vague so as not to actually convey, such that one can feel superior, through exclusive understanding. Otherwise if one truly cared to actually convey, they'd ensure that meaning was apparent. ...

Which I attempted to do with the rather large paragraph I wrote. Once again you appear to think that meaning can be easily apparent when using words to communicate ones thoughts and the point of my thoughts are that this is not necessarily the case and especially so when the subject if the actual vehicle itself.

That is the purpose of words, contrary to at least your belief, to convey ideas, such that one can understand. ...

Not contrary to what I say at all, in fact nearly exactly what I say apart from its so that the other can understand.

The words that you or someone has chosen, do not mean anything of the sort, actually they mean something quite different, ...

Tell me how?

and seem to feed this need of yours to be PNF's thought police, they are in fact born of selfish intentions, of that, there is no doubt. ...

Save your psychobabble for yourself as you apparently need it.

I nowhere say that people cannot think and say what they like, just that I can say what I think about it with respect to a philosophy forum. That you don't like it is your issue.

I have been in the habit to use small words, and many of them, so as to ensure I can convey. For me it is more important to ensure someone understands my meaning, than to think myself clever in creating a cryptic phrase that requires being in the know, then using it to mislead, the resultant, the feeling of superiority, but it's an illusion. There is a very big difference between these two types of people. One cares for others more readily and the other only cares for themselves, always searching for a pat on the back, to such an extent that they ensure it, through such ambiguousness, as they seek to be asked to explain, and in this need of the other seeking clarification, they fool themselves into believing their constructed superiority, is real. There has never been anything said on this forum, that I've seen, that I could not understand. As a matter of fact the reading comprehension part of my entrance exam to college was the highest of all the English section. Because of the plethora of technical manuals I had to read during my 16 years with the US DOD. When I went to college, I was an older student, the oldest in all my classes, in my 30's.

Lmao! So your repeated statement that you know nothing is what?

If there is nothing you don't understand then you obviously understand what I'm saying and nowhere have I said that this quote is all thats needed when communicating ones meaning. That you think I 'make-up' words and that what I say is exclusive just shows your issues as what I said was a pretty clear explanation of what I think about how thought, thinking, language and meaning work. That you claim the above when also claiming that you know nothing shows your confusions. I won't even bother with the irony of your educational claims given what you say to me.

Just people like you.

My guess is you find them more often than not.

You're rationalizing sweetheart, But I expect nothing less from one that coins or references a phrase such as: 'the meaning of ones words is the response they get,' As if you take them at face value, which is the way any words should be taken, they convey the selfishness, and arrogance of their user, because at face value, they are false, and actually somewhat megalomaniacal.

Rationalizing what loon? As all I said is what I thought about your words.

Tell me why the words are false rather than the psychobabble you are so fond of.

"... As if you take them at face value, which is the way any words should be taken ..." And yet you continue to know so many things!

During the composition of this message, I noted that Godfree appealed to both of us to cease our bickering, out of respect, something you seemingly know little about, I'll refrain from responding to any future messages you may post that does not contain on topic material.

Sorry Godfree!

LMFAO! Talk about false platitudes as if you actually meant it then you'd have stopped out of respect before you pressed the submit button.

[Arising_uk]

Caucasian includes Asians , Maori ,North American Indian ,
as you pointed out the only ones that don't are what they have been calling modern man ,? ...

Sorry but what do you mean by "Asians" here?

the smaller brain , Neandertol had the bigger brain , ...

And yet we don't and our brain is the modern mans and the same as the sub-saharans?

Here in NZ the Europeans happily mixed and interbred with the Maori ,
All NZ Europeans do not have Maori DNA , only some of us , probably less than half ,
so Neandertol didn't just get a few black partners from Africa ,
for us all to have the Neandertol DNA means there was a mixing of the two groups
for a long period of time , ,

It could also support the other idea in those articles that the Neanderthal DNA is from a common ancestor.

I had a look at one of the websites you posted which is why I concluded your challenging ,
my claim that we are Neandertol and seem to be still trying to portray them as separate ,
as something different , I see them about as different as modern Africa ,
and modern European , there is still a difference ,
Africans have a few DNA differences to Europeans , they are just as different now as they were then ,
it's all us , we are those cave men hunter gatherers , etc , ...

All I pointed-out was that we are not Neanderthals as they died out a long-time ago. I'm not arguing that they were a separate species just that as an identifiable type they're not us. If they were then we'd have 100% Neanderthal DNA.

the idea that man and the primates are not related is over ,
they can't claim that anymore with any credibility ,
thats the whole point of pointing out that we have Neandertol DNA ,
not to see if I can get a "pass" from you for my punctuation ,
but to make the point that religion can no longer claim we are seperate ,,!!!

I seriously doubt any evidence from a theory that many theist godbotherers deny is going to make any difference to their belief that we are not a primate.

[Godfree]

...
[
Sorry Godfree!

LMFAO! Talk about false platitudes as if you actually meant it then you'd have stopped out of respect before you pressed the submit button.

Sob lets imagine Arising is a religious fundamentalist , and his job here is the spoiler ,
to get you off subject , dragged down into a bitch slapping contest ,
so who's the winner there sob ,??
have you won by slapping back ,
or has Arising won by stopping you from making sense ,getting points across ,
challenging some of these common assumptions ,
those posts are no loner educational for the readers ,
dating sites and face book do that sort of shit , so please ,
regain your dignity and educate us some more ,
regardless of what Arising throws up as a distraction ,,!!!!!

[Arising_uk]

...
I do not believe the universe is expanding , finite , or 13.7 billion years old ,
there is another explanation other than that offered by the main stream ,
and it is people like me who refuse to accept something that makes no sense ,
who will keep pushing till we get it right .

And you are entitled to your beliefs but you are mistaken if you think its people like you who will be getting it right in the way I assume you intend. Unless of course you are planning on becoming an astrophysicist or cosmologist.

[Arising_uk]

...
If the red shift is caused by movement ,
why don't we see the odd one out at say , 14 or 15 billion light years ,
a galaxy that had a near miss and was flung off in the wrong direction , towards us ,
in the vastness of space this must have occurred a few times,
why do we not see these rogue galaxies , going against the grain ,,???

Blue shifted galaxies

[Arising_uk]

...
I havn't googled it but I presume light travels at the same speed through water as it does air? ...

No, it doesn't. The idea of light being constant whatever relative speed one is doing is in the context of a vacuum.

so their not the same , what we experience in air with sound ,
is not a parallel with how light behaves ,

So yes, it is.

so how is this used to explain the red shift ,,??

Which is exactly why its used.

[Arising_uk]

...
Yes they do , light is a form of energy go back to the basics , you can't get something from nothing ,
to maintain that light beam you need energy , energy that will eventually decay ,
there is no way to produce unlimited energy for nothing ,
to send a light beam to infinity , would need an infinite amount of power , ...

Not if its travelling through what is essentially a vacuum as light will only decay if it hits something and is absorbed.

Now this "we are looking at the inside of a sphere " ,,
that would be a flat surface , not some football shaped thing that is supposed to be ,

If you are talking about the map of the CBR then you appear to be confusing the map projection with the object. Do you think the world is square when you look at a map of it?

the image of the bang before it has got large and engulfed us ...

Now I have little idea if whether what the Einsteinian metaphysicians say is true or not but from what they say, when they talk in English, I think this is where you get your thinking confused, as there is no "got large and engulfed us" in their model of the BB and 'SpaceTime'. You appear to keep thinking of it in 3-d spatial terms when its supposed to be a 4-d event. The expansion of the universe is not objects rushing-out into a 'Space' over 'Time' but the expansion of a substance called 'SpaceTime' which makes it appear that all the objects are moving away from us and from our 3-d perspective thats exactly what they are doing, or something like this. Its why logic is not always the best tool for such things, as was shown in Philosophy by the Newtonian metaphysicians with respect to Aristotle.

If you want a fairly original approach for whats going on then I think Cerverny in the Phil of Science section proposes a very interesting model. Think of the 'Universe' or all of existence if you like as composed of some 'substance' thats already got as big as its gonna be, i.e. the 'future' is already 'there', think a kind of 'lattice'. This 'substance' is now undergoing an entropic process that is coalescencing or as he prefers 'crystallizing' the substance which is how we get matter as he thinks matter are flaws in the process or 'crystal' that is being laid down, so in his model the 'past' is the accretion of this process, the present is the phase-space between the accreted substance and its 'future' substance and the 'future' the substance in its original state. What gives him a nice twist is the past has an influence upon the possible states the future substance can have. Now if you're going to do metaphysics based upon physics then I think you ought to think big like him. Me, if I wanted a metaphysics to talk about I'd go for Zuse, Fredkin, et als, Calculating Space as they actually have possible application and relevance to what and how the physicists get their results. So its all a simulation(or emulation?) running on a planck-bit cellular automata.

[Arising_uk]

... Logic tells me the universe is infinite in size and age ,

How does logic tell you this?

the same logic tells me a infinite universe does not go bang ,

How?

Personally I think your logic is actually your political views upon religion causing you to seek answers like this.

imagine the universe is a big net and you are pulling gathering in the net to create a "point of singularity"
how long do you think you will have to pull before the net stops coming ,,??
so you see it is impossible for a infinite universe to become a point of singularity ,
I can easily dismiss the bbt as being illogical nonsense ..!!!

The BBT theory says nothing about the Universe becoming a singularity, that was the time reversible functions of Einstein combined with the idea that gravity and the mass of the universe might end us up in a big crunch. Theory and experiment now say thats its an endless heat death for the lot of us.