How old is the universe...? And, How big is the universe...? Discussion...?

[Justatruthseeker]

I apologise - I thought you'd be able to see that it's just a 3D version of the expanding balloon - when every part of the bulk (dough) expands, elements embedded in it (raisins) will all be carried further away from each other (for any two raisins, the dough between them expands, moving them apart).

I forgive you for requesting one accept Fairie Dust in place of reality.....

Are you implying the dough started from a center and only expands outward in one direction? As the Sloan Digital Survey showed you and which you then ignored????

It's not a particularly difficult concept, but I suppose it requires a degree of physical visualisation. It does also go some way to explaining why you have problems understanding special relativity, which is also helped by physical visualisation.

I understand it just fine. It is you that doesn’t want to accept Relativity has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy without that Fairie Dust. Then you ignore that accuracy and insert 95% Fairie Dust to the theory you claim to understand and accept as accurate..... Your projecting your unbelief in its accuracy and in its understanding upon those who accept its accuracy and what it is trying to tell you about that Fairie Dust.....

As Samuel Johnson said, "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."

As Leo Tolstoy said, “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you implying the dough started from a center and only expands outward in one direction?

No. It expands uniformly in all 3 dimensions. As a local observer, you could call it 'outward' because every location appears to be the centre of expansion; but for the universe there is no centre, so 'outward' is a rather a subjective description.

I understand it just fine. It is you that doesn’t want to accept Relativity has been tested to a 99.8% accuracy without that Fairie Dust. Then you ignore that accuracy and insert 95% Fairie Dust to the theory you claim to understand and accept as accurate..... Your projecting your unbelief in its accuracy and in its understanding upon those who accept its accuracy and what it is trying to tell you about that Fairie Dust.....

What you choose to call 'Farie Dust' is irrelevant to the lack of understanding of the principles of relativity evident in your posts; that you seem to think it is relevant only emphasises that lack.

If your posts regarding relativity express a correct understanding, you should be able to show or explain why my criticisms of them are incorrect; but you haven't. For example, you didn't explain what you mean by 'a stationary point' that you claim our 'true velocity' is relative to. Relativity 101 tells you there's no such thing as a stationary point or a true velocity except relative to some frame - the clue is in the name, 'relativity'.

 

[sjastro]

Is that like a flat earth belief where every direction merely takes you back to your starting point?

Except only one flaw with the sphere belief. Only mass curves spacetime. Therefore at this fabled edge there would be no mass, and hence no curvature.....

Now people can fantasize of curvature without mass, and surfaces without surfaces, but reality does not a fantasy make.

As usual you are totally out of your depth.
If it was as simplistic as mass curves spacetime to determine the geometry of the Universe then using your own line of reasoning since there was no mass at and shortly after the Big Bang, the Universe would have a hyperbolic or open geometry as there would be “no gravity” to put the brakes on expansion.
In a hyperbolic Universe life cannot exist as condensed structures such as people, planets, stars and galaxies cannot form.
The fact we exist as exemplified by having the awareness of putting up with your inane comments is testimony you are wrong.

For those that are interested the geometry of the Universe is dependant on the critical density parameter Ω₀.
If Ω₀ < 1 the geometry is hyperbolic.
If Ω₀ = 1 the geometry is flat.
If Ω₀ > 1 the geometry is closed or spherical.

Furthermore Ω₀ = Ωm + Ωr + Ωλ.
Where Ωm is the critical mass density, Ωr the critical radiation density and Ωλ the critical density associated with dark energy.
At and shortly after the Big Bang Ωm = Ωλ = 0, hence the geometry of the early Universe is purely determined by Ωr.

In this era the Universe is said to be radiation dominated.
Where as density involving mass is inversely proportional to volume it scales as 1/a³ where “a” is the scale factor, the radiation density scales as 1/a⁴.

This has important consequences as the scale factor “a” is also a function of cosmological time which differs in the radiation dominated era and impacts on entropy and ultimately the formation of matter.
Unfortunately an explanation of why this occurs goes beyond a cosmology 101 course and the scope of this post.

The reason why radiation also affects spacetime is a direct consequence of Einstein’s field equations of General Relativity.

Rₐₑ - (1/2)Rgₐₑ + Λgₐₑ = (8∏G/c⁴)Tₐₑ

The right hand side of the equation tells us that spacetime can be curved by the effect of external fields.
The Tₐₑ tensor can include external gravitational fields through mass and electromagnetic fields.
Electromagnetism plays an important role in Special Relativity hence electromagnetic fields are carried over to the General Theory.
In the radiation dominated era in the absence of mass it is the external electromagnetic field that affects spacetime.

Then you would also never get back to your starting point as your starting point got further and further away with time as space expanded.

Which implies space is expanding into something that already exists.

If space is expanding in every direction, then it is also expanding toward us. But you haven’t adequately explained what this nothing is that is expanding and capable of causing galaxies to separate, is capable of bending and of accelerating????

Or we take the observations for what we observe, and realize space is simply being stretched away from a center point, which your balloon analogy also implies.

Because to be expanding in every direction, then your balloon surface must also be collapsing inwards at the same time. Since there are no voids towards a center, all objects can not be on this alleged surface that doesn’t exist.....

This is just plain ridiculous.
In metric expansion the scale factor “a” increases with time.
What this means is that the proper distance between any two points in space time will increase.
Draw dots on a balloon then inflate it.
It should even be obvious to you that no two dots on the surface of the balloon or in more technical terms constrained in two dimensions will move closer to each other.

 

[ianw16]

Sjastro has made an horrendous error! He is using science to argue against JATS. Pointless.

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch and @sjastro

Make the balloon and dots 3-D and blow it up... and then add a force that would also trying to collect all the dots back together while or/and as it was being inflated at the same time...

Then imagine those two forces in a "perfect balance" and/or harmony with each other/one another...

That's what I'm trying to say and/or talk about...

In the most simplest way possible I can put it...

God Bless!

 

[sjastro]

Except the flaw lies in the belief that the furthest galaxies are the youngest, and therefore “at the edge”.

Under this belief if one were on one of those furthest galaxies, then one would be at the edge of the expanding universe 13 billion years ago, or still on the edge in the present, they are just 13 billion years older.

Once again you are way out of your depth.
The “edge” you are referring to is a particle horizon which is defined as the maximum distance an object can be observed.
Beyond this distance photons from an object would take an infinite time to reach the observer and therefore can never be seen.

The concept of cosmological time is beyond you as well.
Using your example of a galaxy at 13 billion light years away, if a supernova occurs in the galaxy then in terms of proper or local time the supernova is younger than the parent galaxy.
In terms of cosmological or look back time due to the finite speed of light, an observer measures the time taken for photons to reach him. Photons from the supernova and parent galaxy reach the observer in the same time.
So in fact your definition is totally wrong, the furthest galaxies are the oldest as expansion cosmological models such as the BB and the various Steady State models are based on cosmological time.

So one would not see the same thing regardless of ones position in the universe. You can’t have them the youngest, and currently the oldest in our present, on the expanding edge, and still claim they are not on the edge.

This would imply that from one of them you could observe the BB itself, being they had just started to form.

This is so comprehensively wrong.
If you have a set of observers located throughout the Universe at the same cosmological time each is constrained by a particle horizon.
None of the observers will see the BB as it is beyond their particle horizon.
Furthermore the CMB is opaque to each observer and photons older than 300,000 years are blocked from the observer.

We won’t get into mature galaxies where they claim only younger ones should exist falsifying their entire model.

Totally incomprehensible word salad.

Also the biggest flaw is that in a spherical space, expanding away also means something in a 3D sphere MUST be moving towards something else..... it also implies a center, just as the data shows.

Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and show us how the data supports your ridiculous assertion or is this going to be another example of making an idiotic comment that you will run away from after being challenged.

Then we have the CMB, which is claimed to have both a red and blue shift. A blue shift in any direction falsifies an expansion in all directions, IF it is what they say it is, which it isn’t.

Here we go again.
You make the same nonsensical statement time and time again and the answer is always the same.
The cosmological redshift of individual galaxies in gravitationally bound clusters is superimposed with a Doppler shift due to motion of the galaxies through spacetime.
Our galaxy including the supercluster in which it is contained is being drawn towards another massive galaxy cluster due to gravity.
As a result our galaxy is moving relative to the CMB which is Doppler blueshifted in the forward direction of travel and Doppler redshifted in the opposite direction.

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch and @sjastro

Make the balloon and dots 3-D and blow it up... and then add a force that would also trying to collect all the dots back together while or/and as it was being inflated at the same time...

Then imagine those two forces in a "perfect balance" and/or harmony with each other/one another...

That's what I'm trying to say and/or talk about...

In the most simplest way possible I can put it...

God Bless!

Oh, and then throw in what would happen or be happening at or very near the "outer edge" or edges of it/that also, if it had/has one...

God Bless!

 

[sjastro]

Sjastro has made an horrendous error! He is using science to argue against JATS. Pointless.

You are right and poor form as well.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

@FrumiousBandersnatch and @sjastro

Make the balloon and dots 3-D and blow it up... and then add a force that would also trying to collect all the dots back together while or/and as it was being inflated at the same time...

Then imagine those two forces in a "perfect balance" and/or harmony with each other/one another...

That's what I'm trying to say and/or talk about...

In the most simplest way possible I can put it...

Sounds a bit different from what you posted before, but OK - gravity could be the force that tries to pull the 'dots' together, and the expansion of space the inflation.

If they were exactly balanced at some point, the universe would have stopped expanding and would be momentarily static, before gravity pulled it all together again (a 'closed universe' ending in a 'big crunch'). Except that there's also the dark energy force that appears to be accelerating the expansion. If gravity and dark energy were exactly balanced at some point, the universe would presumably continue expanding uniformly, until the universe was larger and the clumps of matter were far enough apart for the overall effect of their gravity to become weak enough for the acceleration of expansion to resume (an 'open universe' eternally expanding ever faster, possibly a 'big rip' where the expansion tears everything apart).

There is another common definition of "perfect balance" between expansion and gravity, called the 'flat universe' where gravity matches the big bang expansion so that the expansion of the universe slows down until it stops in the infinitely far future. Observation of the curvature of space suggests that our universe is a flat as we're capable of measuring, and if it wasn't for the accelerating expansion force of dark energy, it's expansion would slow to a stop in the infinite future. As it is, its accelerating expansion will continue indefinitely.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh, and then throw in what would happen or be happening at or very near the "outer edge" or edges of it/that also, if it had/has one...

If the analogy is with the universe, there is no edge, and from every location it looks like you're at the centre.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. It expands uniformly in all 3 dimensions. As a local observer, you could call it 'outward' because every location appears to be the centre of expansion; but for the universe there is no centre, so 'outward' is a rather a subjective description.

So you keep saying without any proof. Tell that to the Great Attractor that space is uniform no matter what direction we look.....

What you choose to call 'Farie Dust' is irrelevant to the lack of understanding of the principles of relativity evident in your posts; that you seem to think it is relevant only emphasises that lack.

This is your way of ignoring that Relativity is 99.8% accurate without any Fairie Dust?????

If your posts regarding relativity express a correct understanding, you should be able to show or explain why my criticisms of them are incorrect; but you haven't. For example, you didn't explain what you mean by 'a stationary point' that you claim our 'true velocity' is relative to. Relativity 101 tells you there's no such thing as a stationary point or a true velocity except relative to some frame - the clue is in the name, 'relativity'.

Says the person that wants his Big Bang to start from a hot dense stationary point and then expand outwards from that point.....

You haven't made any valid criticisms, except to keep making claims of raisin pudding and balloons, all the while not being able to provide a single laboratory experiment to back up your claims..... You just keep presenting Fabricated Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Effort to Defend Untenable Scientific Theory. You seem to think if you repeat the Fairie Dust often enough it will somehow make it true.

I on the other hand, have many, many, many experiments showing Relativity is 99.8% correct without any of your claims of Fairie Dust being needed..... You just keep ignoring that Relativity is 99.8% accurate without any of it at all, and refuse to consider WHY you need it......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As usual you are totally out of your depth.
If it was as simplistic as mass curves spacetime to determine the geometry of the Universe then using your own line of reasoning since there was no mass at and shortly after the Big Bang, the Universe would have a hyperbolic or open geometry as there would be “no gravity” to put the brakes on expansion.

Such as a universe continuing to expand at an accelerating rate????? You see, you require special conditions. A Universe that first expanded faster than c, then stopped for long enough for gravity to form things, then begin acceleration again at a lesser rate but increasing. But gravity for some reason was prevented from collpasing everything by the addition of some unknown type of energy never once observed and that you can't even tell us what it is...... You got more special conditions that had to be just right and more Fairie Dust than you got actual science in your cosmology.

Then they can't even get their models correct right at the edge of our solar system, and you expect me to believe they got them right billions of light years distance and billions of years ago????? They can't even get it right "right next door" cosmologically in the here and now......

In a hyperbolic Universe life cannot exist as condensed structures such as people, planets, stars and galaxies cannot form.
The fact we exist as exemplified by having the awareness of putting up with your inane comments is testimony you are wrong.

It wouldn't matter what type of universe. Gravity doesn't form anything to begin with. Those stars form in filaments which gravity does not form.....

Your puny gravitational model neglects the electromagnetic force which is 10^39 powers stronger than gravity......

For those that are interested the geometry of the Universe is dependant on the critical density parameter Ω₀.
If Ω₀ < 1 the geometry is hyperbolic.
If Ω₀ = 1 the geometry is flat.
If Ω₀ > 1 the geometry is closed or spherical.

Furthermore Ω₀ = Ωm + Ωr + Ωλ.
Where Ωm is the critical mass density, Ωr the critical radiation density and Ωλ the critical density associated with dark energy.
At and shortly after the Big Bang Ωm = Ωλ = 0, hence the geometry of the early Universe is purely determined by Ωr.

Has nothing to do with geometry, it has everything to do with the electromagnetic force.....

In this era the Universe is said to be radiation dominated.
Where as density involving mass is inversely proportional to volume it scales as 1/a³ where “a” is the scale factor, the radiation density scales as 1/a⁴.

Come on, go ahead and say it.... PLASMA..... That word stick in your throat for some reason.

This has important consequences as the scale factor “a” is also a function of cosmological time which differs in the radiation dominated era and impacts on entropy and ultimately the formation of matter.
Unfortunately an explanation of why this occurs goes beyond a cosmology 101 course and the scope of this post.

I know why it occurs. For the same reason atoms form, and it certainly has nothing to do with gravity....... And that's why you have to add 95% Fairie Dust, because you keep trying to sledgehammer gravity to a state of matter it is not the dominant force in.

The reason why radiation also affects spacetime is a direct consequence of Einstein’s field equations of General Relativity.

Rₐₑ - (1/2)Rgₐₑ + Λgₐₑ = (8∏G/c⁴)Tₐₑ

The right hand side of the equation tells us that spacetime can be curved by the effect of external fields.
The Tₐₑ tensor can include external gravitational fields through mass and electromagnetic fields.

Got part of it correct..... The electromagnetic part.....

Electromagnetism plays an important role in Special Relativity hence electromagnetic fields are carried over to the General Theory.
In the radiation dominated era in the absence of mass it is the external electromagnetic field that affects spacetime.

That's why it is called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" because after the Big Bang when all matter was moving, gravity didn't matter at all and the matter was pulled together by the electromagnetic forces working in that plasma. It's called Marklund Convection, a plasma terminology you probably are unaware of, despite plasma being 99.9% of the universe.....

Marklund convection - The Plasma Universe theory (Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

"Alfvén writes that:
".. elements with the lowest ionization potential are brought closest to the axis, and form concentric hollow cylinders whose radii increase with ionization potential [..] The drift of ionized matter from the surroundings into the rope means that the rope acts as an ion pump, which evacuates the surroundings . Regions with extremely low densities can be produced in this way ."[3]"

You know, stars form in filaments..... which lack the mass in the gravitational collapse model to explain.....

"Marklund clarifies:

In my paper in Nature the plasma convects radially inwards, with the normal E x B/B2 velocity, towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube. During this convection inwards, the different chemical constituents of the plasma, each having its specific ionization potential, enter into a progressively cooler region. The plasma constituents will recombine and become neutral, and thus no longer under the influence of the electromagnetic forcing."

And then, and only then, does gravity become the dominant force, like right here in this planetary system where the plasma has cooled and become neutral.....

This is just plain ridiculous.
In metric expansion the scale factor “a” increases with time.
What this means is that the proper distance between any two points in space time will increase.
Draw dots on a balloon then inflate it.
It should even be obvious to you that no two dots on the surface of the balloon or in more technical terms constrained in two dimensions will move closer to each other.

Please, a balloon surface is one dimensional. You need galaxies below that surface all the way to the center of the balloon. Then you need everything expanding away from everything, which means some must expand towards others, else there would be a void in the center, which is not observable.

Between us and a galaxy to our right, space must be expanding in between us, which means we move left and it moves right. Now to a galaxy to our left space also must be expanding between us, which means we move right and it moves left. So in reality we move nowhere, since each is counteracted by the other, and so on for every galaxy..... This is where your Fairie Dust leads you. you just can't see it because you refuse to see it.....

And why did you feel it necessary to ignore your CMB which contains blue shift which proves to you space is NOT expanding in every direction.....?????

Fairie Dust, that's all you got.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you keep saying without any proof. Tell that to the Great Attractor that space is uniform no matter what direction we look.....

The Great Attractor is local in the bigger scheme of things - given our observations of the curvature of space, the whole universe must be at least 15 million times larger than the observable universe. The distribution of matter seems to be a roughly fractal web or network at large cosmological distances, so large structures and voids are expected at all extended cosmological scales.

This is your way of ignoring that Relativity is 99.8% accurate without any Fairie Dust?????

No. Dark matter and dark energy are irrelevant to Special Relativity, which describes the relationship between space and time.

Says the person that wants his Big Bang to start from a hot dense stationary point and then expand outwards from that point.

Nope. I've explained it more than once in this thread alone.

You seem to think if you repeat the Fairie Dust often enough it will somehow make it true.

Meh; I'm not the one who keeps bringing up 'Fairie Dust'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... a balloon surface is one dimensional.

 

[Brightmoon]

( grumble!) wish I knew more physics than I do.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If the analogy is with the universe, there is no edge, and from every location it looks like you're at the centre.

Based upon what observation from another point?????

The Great Attractor and the blue shift of the CMB tell that tale for what it is....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yah that's the only response you got to truth isn't it.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yah that's the only response you got to truth isn't it.....

When you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging.

A surface is not one-dimensional. A line is one-dimensional. The surface of an inflated balloon is a curved surface, so three-dimensional. Geometry 101.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Based upon what observation from another point?????

Observation of the recession of galaxies with distance, observation of the CMB, for example.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Great Attractor is local in the bigger scheme of things - given our observations of the curvature of space, the whole universe must be at least 15 million times larger than the observable universe. The distribution of matter seems to be a roughly fractal web or network at large cosmological distances, so large structures and voids are expected at all extended cosmological scales.

If you say so...

ESA Science & Technology: Hemispheric asymmetry and cold spot in the Cosmic Microwave Background

"An asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky [...] with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look. There is also a cold spot that extends over a patch of sky that is much larger than expected."

The data says your claims are fruitless..... and ignore the data..... which is counter to what you claim..... and not expected from the models....

No. Dark matter and dark energy are irrelevant to Special Relativity, which describes the relationship between space and time.

It's irrelevant to Special and general relativity which explains gravity too.....

Nope. I've explained it more than once in this thread alone.

With Fairie Dust....

Meh; I'm not the one who keeps bringing up 'Fairie Dust'.

Sure you do, you bring it up every time you try to defend failed cosmological models. Can't explain why Gravity fails to describe what we see beyond the solar system, why just add 95% Fairie Dust and keep repeating it as if it's true.....

You can't talk about cosmology without mentioning Fairie Dust, it makes up 95% of it.....