## Expansion of the Universe question

by The Angry Citizen:

I hope you all (4/8/11 to 4/30/11) won't get too angry when you discover that Creation (of something to go "bang", necessary for a Big Bang) requires an act of magic and that magic is not allowed when one studies the Universe. Instead, you must recognize objective reality as your tool in this epistemological arena.

The Cosmological Redshift? How else could it be developed? Try studying the Galactic Clusters that thoroughly dominate our Universe, and observe that redshifts (a side show) are like light light from a forest fire. And see where else a Galactic Cluster will lead you.

 Quote by jbwright by The Angry Citizen: I hope you all (4/8/11 to 4/30/11) won't get too angry when you discover that Creation (of something to go "bang", necessary for a Big Bang) requires an act of magic and that magic is not allowed when one studies the Universe. Instead, you must recognize objective reality as your tool in this epistemological arena. The Cosmological Redshift? How else could it be developed? Try studying the Galactic Clusters that thoroughly dominate our Universe, and observe that redshifts (a side show) are like light light from a forest fire. And see where else a Galactic Cluster will lead you.
Am I reading you correctly, and you're saying that you believe in magic, as in divine or other magic? That's nothing to do with science; nothing at all.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by jbwright I hope you all (4/8/11 to 4/30/11) won't get too angry when you discover that Creation (of something to go "bang", necessary for a Big Bang) requires an act of magic and that magic is not allowed when one studies the Universe. Instead, you must recognize objective reality as your tool in this epistemological arena. The Cosmological Redshift? How else could it be developed? Try studying the Galactic Clusters that thoroughly dominate our Universe, and observe that redshifts (a side show) are like light light from a forest fire. And see where else a Galactic Cluster will lead you.
What in the world are you talking about? I don't get any of what you're saying.
• do you not believe in the big bang?
• how is redshift like a forest fire?
• how is redshift a "side show"
I'm willing to believe I am just not able to interpret you, but I think you need to explain yourself better instead of just making statements that don't seem to make sense.
 Blog Entries: 2 jb seems to be asking possibly valid questions, but in the wrong forum.. perhaps it comes from an emotional investment.. but as this forum is less about theoretical, I'll stop there ;)
 Theoretical? The issue with magic is the same as with a bad theory; lack of falsifiability and support. The need for physics which contradicts existing theories which work, and more. The notion that "before" the big bang or other event is no longer the work of science is a valid statement right now, but it doesn't lead to magic, and it isn't a license to go off the rails.
 What's the use of substituting a theory because it is too "magical" with another even more fantastic? BTW, personal theories are not allowed in this site.
 Some 80 years ago, astronomers had discovered a downward shift in the frequency of the light from distant galaxies (from the blue end of the spectrum towards the red, or a "Redshift"), and their even more recent discovery that this redshift became greater the farther away was the light-source galaxy. In an attempt to account for this redshift they decided that it must be a Doppler effect caused by the movement of the galaxies away from us, and ended up with an Expanding Universe. This resulted in the invented the Big Bang as the explosion that would start the Universe on its journey. So, aside from having had to have been a monstrous explosion to have driven 200 billion galaxies (of 100 billion stars each) out into space, even more disturbing is the question of where all of this mass would have come from? Where , but perhaps through creation, an act of creating something out of nothing? I.e., and act of Magic? So, as we are determined not to use magic we are left with a Universe of some hundreds of billions of galaxies, with the redshifts in their light, and with little else. And this, of course, meant that we needed to look further to find what could take its place. It is here that I suggest Galactic Clusters, a gravitational grouping of galaxies throughout the Universe, from only a few galaxies to over two thousand. These build over billions of years, collecting stellar winds as well as the galaxies, compressing all into an ever more dense aggregations of galaxies and gases, and eventually building a dominant spiral galaxy, a Seyfert. In time the mass and density in the core of the Seyfert Galaxy reaches a critical point at which a nuclear convulsion occurs and two Quasars are ejected, one on each side of the Seyfert. From here it is necessary to go to the studies of the sky's by Halton Arp, where he recognizes that these Seyferts and Quasars are connected in a well defined way, occurring about once every 7 billion years, and that the Quasars themselves blossom into galaxies over a period of time, only to become swallowed by the galactic clusters. Hence, a galactic recycling happening at each of (say) 10 million Seyfert galaxies throughout our Universe, and perhaps on into an infinity of Existence. Now, the major problem herein is the nature of the explosion within the Seyfert galaxy that takes the ashes and other debris from the Galactic Clusters and turns them into the well organized masses that are to become the Quasars from which the new galaxies are to be formed. The Cosmological Redshifts can surely become real when one considers the constantly compressing gases all through the Galactic Clusters, and the other wealth of resources.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 The Cosmological Redshifts can surely become real when one considers the constantly compressing gases all through the Galactic Clusters, and the other wealth of resources.
All the other nonsense in your post aside, no. This does not explain redshift in any way whatsoever. You are asking to get banned with your post.

 Now, the major problem herein is the nature of the explosion within the Seyfert galaxy that takes the ashes and other debris from the Galactic Clusters and turns them into the well organized masses that are to become the Quasars from which the new galaxies are to be formed.
This isn't anything like a real quasar, sorry.

 So, aside from having had to have been a monstrous explosion to have driven 200 billion galaxies (of 100 billion stars each) out into space, even more disturbing is the question of where all of this mass would have come from? Where , but perhaps through creation, an act of creating something out of nothing?
Prove it came from nothing. There are multiple hypothesis about what was before the big bang. Not all of them assume that NOTHING was there.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Drakkith, I was happy to see your response to this post. I'm not knowledgeable enough to be sure but this all sounded like nonsense to me. I did check out Halton Arp and apparently he's a guy who's done some valuable work but is now considered to be on the fringe, refusing to give up his belief in intrinsic redshift hypothesis even though it has been discredited. I THINK some of jbwright's argument requires intrinsic redshift, but it's all so incoherent to me that I can't be sure.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by phinds Drakkith, I was happy to see your response to this post. I'm not knowledgeable enough to be sure but this all sounded like nonsense to me. I did check out Halton Arp and apparently he's a guy who's done some valuable work but is now considered to be on the fringe, refusing to give up his belief in intrinsic redshift hypothesis even though it has been discredited. I THINK some of jbwright's argument requires intrinsic redshift, but it's all so incoherent to me that I can't be sure.
Unfortunently MANY people misunderstand the big bang theory and incorrectly assume that science says everything came from nothing. Not that this is purely their fault. I've seen many a TV show or similar where supposedly credible scientists claim that all this came from nothing. Or they at least pose the question "Where did all this come from?" in the context that it seems to come from nothing. This, obviously, leads to MANY arguments and forays into philosophical areas and leads many people away from science because they simply can't believe that everything came from nothing and science must be wrong. My own grandfather, a devout christian and pastor, has brought this argument up to me several times.
 It appears that dark energy is speeding the expansion and works like antigravity and is a repellent force rather than attracting force. Einstein once proposed this but discarded it as his greatest blunder. It may not have been. In his theory of special relativity, he uses light as a universal constant. I personally think that is a greater blunder. I think he called it a cosmological constant or something like that, and he was maybe on to something, but he seemed so hung up on things being constants. I don't personally believe in constants, but in variables and flows and infinite probabilities.

 Quote by Drakkith Unfortunently MANY people misunderstand the big bang theory and incorrectly assume that science says everything came from nothing. Not that this is purely their fault. I've seen many a TV show or similar where supposedly credible scientists claim that all this came from nothing. Or they at least pose the question "Where did all this come from?" in the context that it seems to come from nothing. This, obviously, leads to MANY arguments and forays into philosophical areas and leads many people away from science because they simply can't believe that everything came from nothing and science must be wrong. My own grandfather, a devout christian and pastor, has brought this argument up to me several times.
Too true; how often do you hear it described as an "explosion"? No wonder people tend to think of it as something within space-time, instead of the beginning of both, the expansion of both from a pinprick.
 @Marcus & Cepheid, What I can't seem to find is an accurate number on the measured rate of expansion of the universe. There's 70km per second per megaparsec (which I take to be close to the Hubble Constant?) which is (oddly) given in one-dimensional terms rather than volume. But this number doesn't seem to include the accelerating rate of expansion detected in the late 90's by Perlmutter et al. That number (70km/s/megaparsec) seems equivalent to a 2.27 x 10^-16% increase in volume per second. This is fantastically low!--were it an interest rate on a bank account, your $1000 deposit would still be only$1000 after 14.7 billion years. Which doesn't seem right financially or cosmologically. To calculate the changing rate of acceleration of space, a large enough number is needed to show significant change in the volume of space since inflation ended about 14.7 billion years ago. Anybody have a more accurate number?
 Recognitions: Gold Member Is 70,000 km/s for a billion parsecs a small amount? (Thats 3.26 billion light years)
 @Drakkith, If the number I found is off by orders of magnitude that would explain the discrepancy--in that 10^-16% doesn't generate any noticeable expansion. What I'm trying to do is calculate the rate of expansion by using a simpler formula, that for calculating compound interest, than those given above. In that analogy space expands its bank account at some interest rate per second. That "interest rate" can then be used to figure out its rate of acceleration. That formula is: I=V(1+r)^t where I is the increased volume, V is the initial volume, r is the rate of expansion per second, and t is the time passed in seconds.
 See above for formula.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Hrmm. I'm not sure on all the math to calculate this, but I have to ask if you took Inflation into account.

 Similar discussions for: Expansion of the Universe question Thread Forum Replies Astrophysics 1 Cosmology 11 General Astronomy 12 Astrophysics 40 Cosmology 4