What do galaxies orbit?

Stuh,

I really didn't think you noticed Embarrassed

. The "Big Bang" is running around just like a Gospel truth. On the science forums I think that is objectionable.

I'd prefer to argue a "preponderence of evidence" rather than coming up with a universe and baldly stating "that's the way it is".

We sure as heck don't know this Exclamation

0 Replies

Hi ros,

Probably I still am older. Smile

Our entertainment was watching frogs and salamanders seriously show signs of distress under General Electric's experimental very high voltage transmission lines where they crossed the Housatonic River.

Make your hair stand up if you were around there when they were experimenting. The things we did that didn't kill us Shocked

Fun-YES

0 Replies

Everybody you may like this,

http://wwwphysorg.com/index

Go to Space news

Article-- The Big Bang is wrong---

0 Replies

All these preposterous ideas about the hyperdimensionality of the universe are the result of one single assumption: that the universe has no edge. And this assumption is made simply because we can't see it.

Assume briefly that there is an edge to the universe. Then it has been expanding faster than the speed of light and it stands to reason that there is an event horizon far from the actual edge, which would make the observable universe from almost every point appear to be entirely homogenous....and this is a much simpler and hence, in my opinion, more plausible scenario than assuming that "if there were an edge, we would have seen it!!!"

Without the homogeneity constraint, we can forget all those notions of a 4 dimensional hypersphere, or a torus or a hyperboloid or an infinite flat universe with infinite mass...we actually can have a c.o.m. (although not a center of expansion).

You don't even have to believe in warping of spacetime due to gravity because all the effects of general relativity would be explained by the standard model in a unified theory with the graviton if they could only solve the renormalization problem...the fact that they can't figure out how to write a computer program to solve the math doesn't mean that it's wrong. Heck we can't even solve the exact roots of a 7th order equation but that doesn't mean it doesn't have roots.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Everybody you may like this,
http://wwwphysorg.com/index
Go to Space news
Article-- The Big Bang is wrong---

There is no such article. I did however find this interesting article with a synthetic guess as to what the big bang sounded like:

http://www.physorg.com/news79099808.html

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

All these preposterous ideas about the hyperdimensionality of the universe are the result of one single assumption: that the universe has no edge. And this assumption is made simply because we can't see it.

I don't think the assumption is made because we can't 'see' the edge.

stuh505 wrote:

Assume briefly that there is an edge to the universe. Then it has been expanding faster than the speed of light

If the 'edge' is expanding faster than the speed of light, then it's no different than there being no edge. The speed of light doesn't just limit our ability to 'see' things, it affects the reality of physics as we understand them. Unless you postulate something which propagates faster than light... are you assuming that gravity is instantaneous.

0 Replies

Our Earth is not at rest
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061008.html

Our Earth is not at rest. The Earth moves around the Sun. The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy orbits in the Local Group of Galaxies. The Local Group falls toward the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies. But these speeds are less than the speed that all of these objects together move relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). In the above all-sky map from the COBE satellite, radiation in the Earth's direction of motion appears blueshifted and hence hotter, while radiation on the opposite side of the sky is redshifted and colder. The map indicates that the Local Group moves at about 600 kilometers per second relative to this primordial radiation. This high speed was initially unexpected and its magnitude is still unexplained. Why are we moving so fast? What is out there?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't think the assumption is made because we can't 'see' the edge.

It is, according to wikipedia and the mods at advancedphysics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Principle

Quote:

If the 'edge' is expanding faster than the speed of light, then it's no different than there being no edge. The speed of light doesn't just limit our ability to 'see' things, it affects the reality of physics as we understand them. Unless you postulate something which propagates faster than light... are you assuming that gravity is instantaneous.

No, it is different. The cosmological prinicple (homogeneity) is being used to constrain a model for the universe to being one that is purely homogeneous for infinity. That is why all the models that use it propose that there is an infinite amount of matter in all directions that never ends, or the universe wraps around on itself.

If, instead, it is how i suggest, then our model of the universe does not need to wrap around or have infinite matter.

As far as we know expansion has no maximum rate of travel, it is not limited to the speed of light by special relativity because it is not a moving particle. Most people already take for granted that expansion has occured faster than the speed of light at the beginning of the big bang, I find it natural to assume that at the edge of space it would still be moving at that faster-than light speed.

And no, I don't beleive that gravity is instantaneous. I believe that it is propagated by boson particle waves which travel at the speed of light like all the other forces.

0 Replies

Re: Our Earth is not at rest

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061008.html
This high speed was initially unexpected and its magnitude is still unexplained. Why are we moving so fast? What is out there?

It could be that there actually is a center if expansion that, although still expanding, expands slower than the edges...causing these kinds of observations.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
I don't think the assumption is made because we can't 'see' the edge.

It is, according to wikipedia and the mods at advancedphysics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_Principle

The article doesn't say anything about not being able to 'see' an edge. As as matter of fact, it pretty much restates what I posted several posts ago.

Maybe I'm losing track of what you are asking. You started out by asking about a gravitational center, the answer to which is pretty much NO, unless you postulate a Universe with an edge. So I guess that's what you're doing.

So, tell me again, why do you think there is an 'edge' which IS observable in relativity (because if it isn't observable relativistically, then it wouldn't be considered to exist)?

0 Replies

Just to confuse things, I submit one well might consider the Planck Horizon to be BOTH edge AND center. Chew on that for a while.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Just to confuse things, I submit one well might consider the Planck Horizon to be BOTH edge AND center. Chew on that for a while.

I consider the 'edge' to be a point in time, not a point in space.

The edge of the Universe is 13.7billion years ago (approx).

Most people forget that the Universe defines both time, and space (for us). Outside of the Universe is Outside of Time. Any boundary which might exist between the two states would not be definable merely by location.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

... Most people forget that the Universe defines both time, and space (for us). Outside of the Universe is Outside of Time. Any boundary which might exist between the two states would not be definable merely by location.

OK - now, just to get all Heisenberg on you ( :wink: ), the precision with which the location of something may be determined is inversely proportionate to the precision with which the observer-relative momentum of that thing may be determined. Space and time are indivisible, concommitant; they are not distinct, discrete phenomena but rather, to our perception, are but humanly artificed manifestations of the same thing, conditition, or state of being; there is neither space nor time, there is spacetime. To my thinking, the causal event for the Planck Horizon, which horizon is that observational brick wall between us and whatever else, equates to that point at which the Heisenberg probability curves cross, making it, spatially and temporally, simultaneously both edge and center of the observable universe.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
... Most people forget that the Universe defines both time, and space (for us). Outside of the Universe is Outside of Time. Any boundary which might exist between the two states would not be definable merely by location.

OK - now, just to get all Heisenberg on you ( :wink: ), the precision with which the location of something may be determined is inversely proportionate to the precision with which the observer-relative momentum of that thing may be determined. Space and time are indivisible, concommitant; they are not distinct, discrete phenomena but rather, to our perception, are but humanly artificed manifestations of the same thing, conditition, or state of being; there is neither space nor time, there is spacetime. To my thinking, the causal event for the Planck Horizon, which horizon is that observational brick wall between us and whatever else, equates to that point at which the Heisenberg probability curves cross, making it, spatially and temporally, simultaneously both edge and center of the observable universe.

Yes, the Big Bang itself is both center and edge. It's probably the beginning and the end. But, I confuse myself...

0 Replies

timberlandko,

I think it is dangerous to generalize observations that we don't understand the cause of, such as the uncertainty principle, to very different scales and circumstances.

Quote:

Maybe I'm losing track of what you are asking. You started out by asking about a gravitational center, the answer to which is pretty much NO, unless you postulate a Universe with an edge. So I guess that's what you're doing.

So, tell me again, why do you think there is an 'edge' which IS observable in relativity (because if it isn't observable relativistically, then it wouldn't be considered to exist)?

I think that there is an edge because:

1) There is no evidence to the contrary
2) If there is an edge, then the spatial model of the universe need not be some confusing abstract hyperdimensional shape...so I am inclined to believe in the simplest explanation that matches observation.

0 Replies

timberlandko,

I think it is dangerous to generalize observations that we don't understand the cause of, such as the uncertainty principle, to very different scales and circumstances.

rosborne,

Quote:

Maybe I'm losing track of what you are asking. You started out by asking about a gravitational center, the answer to which is pretty much NO, unless you postulate a Universe with an edge. So I guess that's what you're doing.

So, tell me again, why do you think there is an 'edge' which IS observable in relativity (because if it isn't observable relativistically, then it wouldn't be considered to exist)?

I think that there is an edge because:

1) There is no evidence to the contrary. That the universe is homogenous and isotropic as far as we can see cannot be generalized to
the universe as a whole, ESPECIALLY not if it is going to be used as evidence for a claim of what is BEYOND what we can see.

2) Finite quantities are more consistent with our Earthly observations, and hence more believable than infinite quantities.

3) We have no examples to show that "closed spaces" are possible to exist. All of our observations of distances, except for fluctuations at the quantum level, have shown that effective distance
is proportional to measured distance. To assume that it is otherwise for the universe as a whole would need some very good reasons.

4) If there is an edge, then the spatial model of the universe need not be some confusing abstract hyperdimensional shape...so I am inclined to believe in the simplest explanation that matches observation.

0 Replies

Stuh, Sorry about that link. Crying or Very sad

It seems to happen to me a lot but if you'd like to browse the space forums at PhysOrg you'd probably bump into it.

Largely he is advocating a Compton effect which basically says most of the time if you interfere with ElectroMagnetic Radiation it will lose energy (be red-shifted).

There are at least two effects that will red shift light with no relative motion between observer and the emitter.

These are the effects of intergalactic hydrogen and the gravitational red shift.

Unless these can be quantified (allowed for in the calculations) the red shift and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Emissions are basically meaningless. Certainly we can't build a Universe unless we can measure it with some accuracy.

I note that the anomalies of red shift distance measurements occur mostly around very massive objects. Notably Quasars.

This leads me to "BELIEVE" that the red shift is largely the effect of space time and its mechanical components and in no way indicates a general expansion of even the "Observeable Universe".

And if it's not expanding it probably never "Banged" either Exclamation

My money is still on #7

0 Replies

Bumble Bee,

This can be described as "local motion" if your universe is big enough Laughing

.

Since my universe (#7) has no general expansion all motion is local. Of course the neighborhood is pretty good sized Exclamation

Of course the aparent motion may simply be the results of varying densities in other neighborhoods. No way to tell Exclamation

0 Replies

This is your #7:

Quote:

7)The infinite-evolving universe in which a "Big Bang"(within space) describes the horizon between classical-relativistic physics and Quantum Mechanics---

You describe the horizon as being a separation layer between two different realms, one where special relativity holds and another where quantum mechanics holds. But outside of the separation plane would be nothing, so it is meaningless to talk about what laws exist there...and we know that quantum mechanics exists inside, so I don't get what you're saying.

You say you don't believe in expansion or the big bang, but then say you believe in #7, in which you say that you do believe in the big bang.

0 Replies

Timberlandko,

I have been chewing on that one for a long time. Relative to my age that is Smile

Now can you show me how to build a Universe like that Question

Like with stars, stones and time and everything Question

Klein jugs and Mobius strips just don't quite get it Sad

0 Replies

What do galaxies orbit?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know