So what is really at the center of or galaxy?

There is nothing like a good argument and that is nothing like a good argument? Are you the pope, so infallibly true?

To put it so that even you can understand it. Infra-red photons decay into microwave photons. Are you Superman so can see microwaves with your super-vision?

No evidence for a multiverse. Since the universe only has a set amount of material in it, were it going to contract it would have done so billions of years ago. An outdated concept.

Only in mathsworld. I prefer the real world.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry if your "Big Bang for real dummies" doesn't agree with me. Explain what was before the universe began (however) if not nothingness.

If I want to know what a text book says, I will read one rather than waiting for a know-nothing to quote one to me. The CMB was recently found to have hot and cold areas (I pointed that out on this forum). About five years ago, four separate observatories found big differences in the CMB. To say that the CMB was caused by random heat from stars which would be fairly even is more likely than the cretinous inflation nonsense. Explain how a black hole can expand!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just because something has been found to work ONLY in a laboratory so far under strict conditions which could be nothing more than an atomic vaporising of materials, it does not mean it works without those exact conditions in space.

This does not explain how this happened in the very early universe where everything was close together, as in clusters where even small remote objects are held in place.

Elements in the quantum world can be explained using common sense rather than imagination run wild.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh well. Crackpots unite.

Please read, then go away.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

Not my job, or the job of BB theory.

Ok. Right. Just like a creationist or other fundie extremist type. No amount of evidence or full answers to your questions will make a dent in your self-aggrandizing egomania.

I thopught this link migt help, but you can safely ignore it as you apparently have every other bit of science education that you may have stumbled across.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

See ya around. When this gets moved to the pseudo subforum.

 

Really? Trying to apply some scientific rigor here? Please research "Casimir Effect" and in general just how smart scientists can be at anticipating the very experimental influences you bring up while conducting their research.

See my link I posted in half a dozen other threads.

Umm... not in a way that actually fits with observed reality, my friend. QM, especially QED (Quantum ElectroDynamics) is at the top of the list of the most successful theories of all time.

Why fight it? Oh. Right. Egomania will not allow anyone but you to be right. Sorry for your loss.

 

superluminal. I have in a number of places explained why I think the BB is wrong and your following debate is normally limited to the usual casual insults. I find myself wondering why you do not use this talkorigin site you keep posting a link to to show why I am wrong.

The only explanation I can come up with is that you are a kid who gets his science from internet sites like this and then uses it as a tool to heap abuse on others. Perhaps you are bullied in the playground by other kids, which causes this behaviour? If so, then you should complain to your teacher at once. That would expalin why you fail to actually answer any questions. No knowledge!

 

Where?

Umm... I did answer your questions and you didn't like the answers. Maybe if you rephrase your questions you'll get different answers. Give it a try. What do you want to know?

P.S. You are the most defensive poster I've yet run across in my years here.

 

superluminal. In a number of places. Your usual reply is just an insult. Your way of admitting you don't have a clue.

The nearest you have come to answering any of my questions is to quote the accepted line which is what I and many others here already know and what I am arguing about. I can check an internet site myself if I don't know the accepted line and do not need you to point out the obvious. That is not debate.

You so casually hurl insults that even you don't realise it any more.

 

So, if no one is allowed to counter your arguments with actual science, reasoning or logic, then you are apparently here to watch yourself type and admire the results in a form of forum masturbation, correct?

If I am wrong I sincerely apologize.

 

superluminal. I can only put my arguments forwards. It is not helpful if someone just says : This is what accepted science says so you must be wrong. That is not debate.

 

Lets not forget that "Black holes", "The Big Bang" and what is in the center of the galaxies are theories. We have no idea. And people hate that. I lend credence to the guys with the really big telescopes but they take only wild guesses.

The universe as far as we know has no shape, size or any other defining limits. It reaches (and so do the galaxies and visible objects) in all directions as far as we can see.

Gravity (we have no idea what gravity is) is a phenomenon that attracts mass. A simple look at a picture of a galaxy will tell you it is under the effects of gravity on a large scale. We have little understanding of such large scales.

The age of the universe is unknown. We gauge it by looking as far as we can in telescopes. The idea is that light traveling to us will give the age. We then rightly or wrongly insert the theory that the Big Bang exists just before that so that there will be nothing more to see. If tomorrow we gain the ability to see twice as far, the universe will then become twice as old. Either way, we know it is old.

Black holes are black to the point they consume light. They also have an attraction we liken to great amounts of gravity. The big question is where does this attracted mass go once it enters the middle? Is it mashed into a ball? Does it go to some other point is space? It would be funny if it went into the center of a galaxy (that was a joke). Some people have suggested it goes into another dimension. We know nothing about other dimensions so... why not?

Much of the work done at atomic and sub atomic levels has clearly shown that the simple rules of physics go out the window at these levels. a whole new branch of physics has arisen. Much of what exists at this point are theories. While allot can be observed in laboratories we have yet to see how these rules apply to large scale events.

It is a shame but we are not experts. We have big telescopes and creative minds.

 

Then why are you posting in the astronomy section? If you think that everything we've learned about these things is a "wild guess" you should be in the pseudoscience sub. Seriously.

Ask me how sick I am of people with zero clue coming in here and posting shit.

 

Why would I "debate" proven science? Most of what gets posted here are and "debated" are things that have either solid observational backing or good theoretical backing.

 

Yes, you are correct in that it is impossible to circumnavigate the universe. That does not change the fact the universe is curved on itself and does have a finite - although mindboggling huge - diameter.

I'm also aware of the event horizon; I sometimes bait people who annoy by claiming we are at the center of the universe. (The observable universe by our perspective - just like everywhere else.) :rimshot:

That's sort of true. We cannot measure the size of the universe, but we can make pretty decent calculations based on what we know of expansion rates and time. But it's kind of like Jethro Boudin reading his wrist watch; he can't ever know exactly what time it is because the second hand keeps moving. :shrug:

The same is true of shape. We cannot get 'outside' the universe to look at it. Nor can we map it completely, due to the event horizon problem. However, based on the fact of the constant expansion and the curvature factor, it seems to be 'roundish', as far as our minds will grasp. More of a multidimensional sphere - sort of thing. Frankly, it really doesn't matter much.

 

The galaxy is obviously held together by gravity..how much is still speculative I imagine. It could be just enough gravity to not spin everything off into other regions of space and the rest of the work of keeping it together is done by the actual spinning itself.

Here is whats interesting to me though..I was out looking at some of the images at the hubble site and look at the colliding..merging..and attracting of galaxies by other galaxies pictures. Apparently gravity is stronger than the force of expansion of the universe. The stretching of space can theoretically hold onto galaxies enough to mimic movement but introduce the smallest amount of gravity between objects and that negates the effects. All of this may mathematically hold true, but wouldnt that also mean that gravity is really independant of the overall structure of space or spacetime?

 

Archie,

That's the thing. WMAP determined that the geometry of the universe is flat, within a 2% margin of error. That means a straight line will remain straight over the largest distances in the universe. The line will not curve back on itself.

 

superluminal. This is a place where people come to debate what they believe, in science. No one with doctorates, degrees, etc comes here to pass time between lectures or writing a new paper for publication in a peer reviewed magazine.

There are better sites for hard science and maths which are less frivilous than this place which maybe you should give a look-in to see if you like them better?

 

What a question... good too.

I would say that the most probable solution would be black holes... but if that is true, then perhaps these supernovea we are observng are in fact white holes... yet... if this is true, we have great deals upon our hands...

There might be wormholes, threaded with exotic matter, which at very compactified spacetime's could be sucking eveything into it, and spitting it back out into this universe...

It might even be the product of of very compact photons all quantum entangled since big bang, and are gradually pulling everything into a center of force - the truth is, i don't think we will ever know in our lifetimes, unless we achieve creating black holes, which i am strictly against.

 

ranthi. Look at a picture of a spiral galaxy:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...es+andromeda+galaxy&um=1&start=1&sa=X&oi=imag

and ignoring dust lanes, light matter looks like all there is. You wonder why there is any need for dark matter?

For expansion to work, it needs that SPACE is an actual material with sufficient stability to be able to drag whole galaxies along. It also needs that there is ever more space being made (I think stretching space is not likely because you would then change it's properties). This could be possible if the "nothing" we were expanding into unravelled into matter (basic particles), EMR, space, etc so adding onto the universe as a whole. That would however mean a universe which became ever more massive with new material and energy as well as more space.