Page 2 of 3

Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 2:07 pm
by }TCP{Coco
Well, the Big Bang theory is just a theory, that's true. This is because it's impossible to prove. A theory just holds as long as there are no facts disproving it. However, with the BBT it's possible to explain many things that couldn't be explained otherwise. One of the strong indications that it could be true is the existance of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This clearly states that the energy density once was as high that light couldn't pass space without being absorbed and reemitted endlessly. The universe was optically dense and that phase only ended about 300000 years after the Big Bang when the universe had expanded sufficiently.

Of course, the BBT doesn't say anything about what was there before. But it also doesn't say the Big Bang came from nothing. It just states that all energy of the universe once was bound in a spot without dimensions. When the Big Bang happened, the expanding energy created the spatial dimensions, as well as time itself. And even if it conflicts with our intuitive understanding that time can't have a beginning or an end, it's a logical explanation.

From my view, the only question is: Where did the energy come from? Energy, in a certain sense, is the true magic of everything. Nothing would exist without it (not even matter), it can't be used up or destoyed (in fact, energy always is being converted) and it seems that it was already there when everything began. And after all, nobody can explain what energy really is.

Thinking about what was there before the Big Bang is highly speculative since we can't obtain any information about it. There are theories, especially in the context of quantum physics (as Ramses has mentioned already), but they're rather providing possibilities than explanations.

@Ramses: First of all, that object with the highest known red shift is not a star (stars would be too faint to see them at that distance), but a Gamma Ray Burst. The fact that it happened about 600 million years after the Big Bang tells us that it is very far away (almost at the outer boundary of the universe), because when the universe expanded during the following 13.1 billion years, the object moved away with it. The distance to the GRB in fact is 13.1 billion lightyears and thus it took light 13.1 billion years to reach us. Nobody knows where the center of the univserse is located, so it's hard to talk about objects on the other side of it. However, we should be able to see any object in space if it is bright enough (regardless in what direction it moves), since speeds have to be added relativistically. The total velocity when adding up two velocities v1 and v2 would then be: (v1 + v2) / 1 + ((v1 * v2) / c^2), where c is the speed of light. So even if v1 and v2 are equal to c, the total velocity never exceeds c.

There are gravitational effects in the universe, of course. But keep in mind the incredible impulse caused by the Big Bang. Gravity weakens with growing distance. On the other hand, the impulse of movement wears off over the time. In fact, it's been one of the big open questions of the past decades whether the universe will expand in all eternity or whether gravitational forces will once win over expansion and the whole universe will pull itself together again. Even a third possibility has been discussed: Expansion will continue and wear off in the same moment when every object is too far away from each other for gravitaional effects. However, the question seems to be answered since scientists discovered that the Hubble constant is growing over the time. This means that the expansion of the universe is accelerating - despite the effect of gravitation. Nobody knows why it is like that, but to handle this (and believe it or not - this truely is the ONLY reason!), scientists have postulated the Dark Energy. We know there's a force that's responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. And since we can neither see nor measure it, we call it Dark Energy.

It's the same with Dark Matter by the way. Dark Matter was postulated because stars would normally be ejected from our Milky Way if they rotated around it with the speed they do. The only explanation why they don't do so is that there must be stronger gravitation and thus more matter causing it. But once again: Since we can neither see nor measure it, we call it Dark Matter.

@Ronny: It's legitimate to doubt any theory, of course. But one has to give sound reasons to prove something wrong cause otherwise it'll just bring discredit to anyone doing so.

Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 3:34 pm
by Marwin
WOW, didnt know that this would happen, i stuck at 1st big reply from Coco! :-P

Hope i get a bit time 2night to read all this stuff, but what i can see from flick through is that exactly that what i wanted to have. :-D
I also hope it ll be continue good and fair.
Still love TCP, cause only there such a discussion makes sense.

:-D

Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 10:36 pm
by Marwin
}TCP{Coco wrote:The remaining neutrons dissolved into protons and electrons during the following 5 minutes.
You mean neutrons splits up to protons and electrons? Didnt know that that could be.
}TCP{Coco wrote:Now since the Sun and its planets have formed from the remnants of older stars and no other elements than mainly Hydrogen and Helium were created during the Big Bang, this means that all atoms in your bodies (except these two) were created by fusion in the core of a no longer existing star or in a supernova explosion. Thrilling thought, isn't it?
Crazy stuff u telling us Coco!
That is rly pure thrill :-D
So i can say also, i exist of star corpses :-P
}TCP{Coco wrote:From my view, the only question is: Where did the energy come from? Energy, in a certain sense, is the true magic of everything. Nothing would exist without it (not even matter), it can't be used up or destoyed (in fact, energy always is being converted) and it seems that it was already there when everything began. And after all, nobody can explain what energy really is.
E=mc² :lol:


Maybe I have also a thrilling thing 4 you Coco. Did u know that the known universe is better researched as the deep sea? :-P


Here some impressions, so the universe could look like.........maybe :-D



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U[/youtube]

Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 11:12 pm
by partydevil
the pressure in the deep sea get's to big for any metals we (as humans) can create
and in the deep sea we can't just watch @ anything cause there is no light
we rly have to go there befor we can say anything about it

space is maybe much bigger but we can watch way way furter away then in water and so it makes it easyer to explorer

Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 9:13 am
by }TCP{Coco
Marwin wrote:You mean neutrons splits up to protons and electrons? Didnt know that that could be.
Indeed, that's what I mean. Basically, it's just a partition of the neutral neutron into a positive proton and a negative electron. A part of the surplus energy is being transformed into an anti-neutrino, but that's not important here. If you're interested in that, you can read it here (English) or here (German).
Marwin wrote:Crazy stuff u telling us Coco!
That is rly pure thrill :-D
So i can say also, i exist of star corpses :-P
Exactly. To be more precise: You're made of star matter (or stardust?). :-)
Marwin wrote:E=mc² :lol:
This in fact describes the equivalence of energy and matter. Matter is nothing but a special form of energy. On the other hand, you can see from this formula, what unbelievable amounts of energy are contained in just a few grams of matter!
Marwin wrote:Maybe I have also a thrilling thing 4 you Coco. Did u know that the known universe is better researched as the deep sea? :-P
Yes and no. :-P If we're talking about the general structures, that's correct. However, there could be oceans like ours on countless planets out there. And since there are 150 billion stars with between 0 and 15 planets solely in the Milky Way, we can say that we know close to nothing about the universe. Not to mention that there are about estimated 400 billion galaxies besides our Milky Way in the whole universe. ;-)
Marwin wrote:Here some impressions, so the universe could look like.........maybe :-D
Yeah, nice movie, got it on my HD already. :-) If you'd like to learn something about the scales of planets and stars, take a look at this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfs1t-2rrOM[/youtube]
Note: If the video gets stuck at the beginning, just move the progress indicator to the right a little.

Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 6:04 pm
by Marwin
}TCP{Coco wrote:The expansion of the univserse was discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The determination of the expansion rate (called Hubble constant) is a subject of ongoing investigation until today. Recent observations claim a value of about 69.7 kilometers per second per megaparsec. This means that an object with a distance of one megaparsec (equals 3.26 lightyears) disappears with a speed of 69.7 km per second. Farther objects disappear even faster. It's just like with the dots on the ballon: The distance between more distant pairs grows faster than between nearer pairs
Get I that right? The universe is expanding. If u put a point (galaxy) and a second one (one galaxy more) in it. What is expanding then (or better what happen between this points)?
Accrues space inbetween, or move the galaxies only away to each other?
Or is the space inbetween rly stretched???

Alpha Centauri is the nearest star to us (exept the sun). He is 4.22 light years away. One megaparsec is 3.26 light years. If we take it not so exactly now ( I know its wrong, but its easier to suggest 4 me), we can say he is one megaparsec away.

Is he rly traveling 69.7 km away from us every second !?!
Right or wrong?

Thank You Coco to share this with us!

Image

Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 7:41 pm
by }TCP{Ramses
I'm still stuck on my original problem ... let me explain what I mean ...

1. Lets assume that whatever object caused the Gamma Ray Burst and our Earth are moving in opposite directions from big bang central (for simplicity and greatest possible distance purposes)
2. Let us also assume that both were travelling near to the speed of light away from the bang for 600 million years (for the same purposes, impossible of course but it gives a nice theoretical "maximum" distance).
3. If the earth had stopped dead in space after 600 million years then it would have taken a maximum 1.2 billion years for the signal from the gamma ray burst (at 600 million years after big bang) to reach us.
4. The earth didn't stop moving away from big bang of course, but the extra time taken for the signal to reach us is over ten times as long, 13.1 billion years as opposed to 1.2 billion, or an extra 11.9 billion years (American billions of course). Surely we can't have been moving so fast after the signal left at 600 million year ABB (After big bang :P) to account for this extra travelling time :?
5. It seems to me that either we are travelling pretty close to the speed of light (which I dont think we are ... everything would be blurred :P ... what % of light speed are we travelling at ? an extremely low % I would guess) or that 600 million ABB signal should have passed us by long ago (which it hasn't, as presumably the red shift proves) :?

I'm missing something simple no doubt, just wish I knew what :lol:

Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 8:41 pm
by }TCP{Coco
Marwin wrote:Get I that right? The universe is expanding. If u put a point (galaxy) and a second one (one galaxy more) in it. What is expanding then (or better what happen between this points)?
Accrues space inbetween, or move the galaxies only away to each other?
Or is the space inbetween rly stretched???
You could say new space is created inbetween. But it's not just at a single spot, it's simply everywhere. You may probably ask yourself now if it's possible that space is created within a solid object and what the consequences would be. I'd say yes, that's the case, but the strong interaction keeps the atoms stable and the weak interaction keeps them in place, so no objects are being torn apart. But to be honest, I'm not exactly sure about it. It's only how I understood it.
Marwin wrote:Alpha Centauri is the nearest star to us (exept the sun). He is 4.22 light years away. One megaparsec is 3.26 light years. If we take it not so exactly now ( I know its wrong, but its easier to suggest 4 me), we can say he is one megaparsec away.

Is he rly traveling 69.7 km away from us every second !?!
Right or wrong?
Yes, it does, you got it right. An object at a distance of 2 mpc would move away twice as fast (139.4 km/sec), and so on.
Marwin wrote:Thank You Coco to share this with us!
You're welcome! Personally, I think there's no more interesting topic. :-)

Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 9:52 pm
by }TCP{Coco
Ramses, I'm afraid I don't really understand your example. :-P I'll simply write some conclusions below each of your statements. Let's see if we can get this clearer...
}TCP{Ramses wrote:1. Lets assume that whatever object caused the Gamma Ray Burst and our Earth are moving in opposite directions from big bang central (for simplicity and greatest possible distance purposes)
Ok, Earth and GRB are moving away from the BB center in opposite directions. What's not clear to me is: When did they start? You wrote "for greatest possible distance purposes". Do you mean because of the opposite directions or because they started shortly after the BB (600 million years, according to the GRB event)? Or doesn't time matter and they just started at the same time?
}TCP{Ramses wrote:2. Let us also assume that both were travelling near to the speed of light away from the bang for 600 million years (for the same purposes, impossible of course but it gives a nice theoretical "maximum" distance).
Ok, no problem here.
}TCP{Ramses wrote:3. If the earth had stopped dead in space after 600 million years then it would have taken a maximum 1.2 billion years for the signal from the gamma ray burst (at 600 million years after big bang) to reach us.
This could be a problem in your thoughts, but I'm not really sure how you mean it. If Earth stood still after 600 million years, it would take light emitted from the GRB at that very moment 1.2 billion years to reach Earth. Light emitted earlier would have passed Earth earlier, of course, because light is faster than the speed at which the GRB moves away from Earth (as long as neither the GRB nor Earth move at the speed of light). This is due to the relativistic addition of speeds. Just see my formula posted above and insert 299000 for v1 and v2, for example. The result will still be smaller than 300000 (if c is set to 300000).
}TCP{Ramses wrote:4. The earth didn't stop moving away from big bang of course, but the extra time taken for the signal to reach us is over ten times as long, 13.1 billion years as opposed to 1.2 billion, or an extra 11.9 billion years (American billions of course). Surely we can't have been moving so fast after the signal left at 600 million year ABB (After big bang :P) to account for this extra travelling time :?
Now this is hard for me to understand, mainly because point 1 isn't really clear. You're relating the real distance of the GRB to your example above. But in reality, the GRB happened 600 million years after the BB while Earth was created approximately 8.5 billion years after that.

Anyway, I think I know what you mean. If both objects were created 600 million years after the BB and both would have moved away in different directions for 600 million years and Earth would have stopped then, light from the GRB would take 1.2 billion years to reach Earth. Now if Earth hadn't stopped moving (as it did), light from the GRB would have taken 13.1 billion years to reach Earth (as it did). Your question now is: How could it take an additional 11.9 billion years just because Earth was still moving? Is Earth really moving that fast?

Don't forget that Earth kept moving for an additional 11.9 billion years in this example. And according to your setup, it moved at nearly the speed of light!
}TCP{Ramses wrote:5. It seems to me that either we are travelling pretty close to the speed of light (which I dont think we are ... everything would be blurred :P ... what % of light speed are we travelling at ? an extremely low % I would guess) or that 600 million ABB signal should have passed us by long ago (which it hasn't, as presumably the red shift proves) :?
Well, it's very complicated to calculate everything the way you did. The reason is: Since light needs time to travel big spaces, space becomes larger during the time of travelling. So even if the viewer stood still and light was emitted at a distance of 13.1 billion lightyears, the way it takes to reach the viewer would be far longer than 13.1 billion lightyears in the end.

Try to see it like this instead: By measuring the red shift of the light we receive, we can reliably tell the distance it has travelled (by using the Hubble constant as described above). So if we see that it has travelled 13.1 billion lightyears, we know it was emitted 13.1 billion years ago and thus shows the object as it looked exactly that many years ago. But that doesn't mean that the object was 13.1 lightyears distant when the light was emitted. Since both, Earth and the object, were moving after the light was emitted, it's very complicated to estimate the original distance!

By the way: You can't ask for the speed of Earth moving in space without a relation point. I can just tell you that Earth has a rotation speed of 465.12 m/s at the equator, moves around the Sun at an average speed of 29,78 km/s, the Sun moves around the galactic center at a speed of 220 km/s and the Milky Way moves towards the Andromeda galaxy (the next most massive member of our local group of galaxies) at a speed of 120 km/s. Well, in fact both are approaching each other. But don't worry, it'll still take about 3 billion years from now until they collide :-P

Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 11:07 pm
by }TCP{Ramses
ok lets try to clarify (using the original point numbers) :)

1. I'm assuming that the matter/energy that eventually made both the earth and that which was responsible for the gamma
a) started at the big bang year 1 ground zero
b) and moved in opposite directions for 600 million years ...

2. Travelling at near light speed during this time (just to simplify things when calculating the distance at the time of emission) ...

3. to create a maximum distance between the two bodies of matter of 1.2 billion light years at the time that the gamma we pick up now left its' source ...

4. It has actually taken 13.1 billion years to reach us, so 11.9 billion years of this journey (13.1 - 1.2 = 11.9) is down to Earth's matter moving away from the gamma source since the gamma was emitted (due to the inertial created by the big bang and the push from dark energy) ... moving at what must be at an incredible speed, an impossibly (for me) large % of the speed of light for it to take so long to reach us.

My confusion is possibly down to the "new space created everywhere" thing. I visualise expansion and our movement away from big bang as an explosion, with earth as a bit of shrapnel. In this visualisation it would be the outer edge of the universe (ie outer bits of shrapnel) pushing into nothingness and "creating" extra space at the outer edge, with slighly slower bits following on.

I know that we have moved since the gamma was emitted and it's hard (impossible ?) to calculate how far, which is why I made those assumptions to get a maximum distance at the time of emission. The additional time taken for it to reach us must be down to earth matter's movement since emission. It's irrelevant that the gamma source has also moved since emission (600 million years ABB), because we are only now seeing it as it was in 600 million ABB.

and my relation point when asking for the speed of Earth was ground zero big bang ... how fast we are moving away from big bang outwards. I think you have already said that we dont know where the big bang was, so I guess this speed cannot be calculated by anyone :? :P

Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 1:00 am
by partydevil
is their prove that earth or that red light thingy actualy has been created during the big bang
or is it possible that the earth was created during a other explosion or something like that

some years ago i had seen something like a cloud that was making new stars
since our sun is basicly just a star can't it be created latter on in the process then the beginnen?

Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 8:33 am
by }TCP{Ramses
The Sun, Earth and our solar system were all born much after the big bang Partydevil, from the debris of previous stars that died and exploded. Gravity caused the dust from the previous generation of stars to join together and create the Solar system, and this process is still happening which is why we still get comets and meteors hitting the planets and sun.

But all matter and energy in the Universe has it's origins in the big bang (except perhaps some wierd particles that appear and disappear, and gravity, both of which might originate from a parallel universe)

So, for the purposes of my problem, it doesn't matter that the earth wasn't actually born when the gamma started it's journey at 600 million years after the big bang, because the matter that eventually made the earth was floating out there in some form or other.

I think :P

Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:28 am
by Marwin
}TCP{Coco wrote:You could say new space is created inbetween. But it's not just at a single spot, it's simply everywhere. You may probably ask yourself now if it's possible that space is created within a solid object and what the consequences would be. I'd say yes, that's the case, but the strong interaction keeps the atoms stable and the weak interaction keeps them in place, so no objects are being torn apart. But to be honest, I'm not exactly sure about it. It's only how I understood it.
Sry but, WTF!!! :-D


}TCP{Coco wrote:You're welcome! Personally, I think there's no more interesting topic. :-)
It´s rly a great topic indeed! It´s also to my taste, and isnt it so that how more riddles are come, the more would we know about it (exploratory spirit)?

Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 12:36 pm
by }TCP{Viper//
lies :P

im against the big bang :P

i say some random ''god'' created everythin in his boredom o.o


LOL viper u punk dont throw in religion into the mix :P u dutch punk :D roger :D


but seriously :P

As the universe expanded, adiabatic cooling caused the plasma to cool until it became favorable for electrons to combine with protons and form hydrogen atoms. This recombination event happened at around 3000 K or when the universe was approximately 379,000 years old

coco: However, about 10 seconds after the Big Bang, protons and neutrons connected to form the first Hydrogen

anyways :P the wiki stuff written here is mostly right about stuffl :P study timeeee for u peeps:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... background


but im stickin to my theory !

a random unseen entity created EVERYTHIN :O

i also believe the end is near and that sum1 i know is one of the 4 horsemen :O the Apocalypse is at hand people! huahauhauahu

Posted: Thu May 27, 2010 4:14 pm
by }TCP{Coco
I'm gonna reply here within the next days. I'm quite busy at the moment and don't quite have the patience to do it when I'm finished in the evening. :-P But I'll reply for sure, hang on...