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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It isn't irrelevant. Since in reality galaxies must exist all the way to the center of the balloon..... Else there would be a void in two directions, which is not observable, and so your dots on a surface of a balloon fail miserably to reflect reality.....

The balloon analogy only involves the surface of the balloon and only illustrates how a uniform expansion can move every point on the surface further away from every other point. I even mentioned, in the post where I explained it, that the balloon & raisin bread analogies had their faults:

"...both analogies have been criticised because of the distractions of irrelevant surfaces & edges, inside & outsides..."​

The very distractions you've predictably fallen for But really, anyone with even a passing familiarity with this topic would know the balloon analogy and what it means.

Sure I've seen one blown up, and the air molecules inside do not all expand away from one another......

Indeed they don't, and the analogy doesn't suggest that they do

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Their own science has already falsified their belief of a universe that looks the same everywhere. They just can't or won't admit to it...

Not that it looks the same everywhere, but that wherever you are looks like the centre of expansion.

 

[Neogaia777]

That's a gross distortion of the current model. The big bang wasn't an explosion, it was a universal exponential scalar expansion of space. I don't know what you mean by 'dark area pockets' but space is expanding everywhere and gravity is holding things like galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters of galaxies together for now.

Look at the pictures would you, the empty areas are the dark area pockets...

It is all expanding at the same rate as it is being pulled together... The dark empty areas (again the pictures) are growing slowly at the same rate as they always were, that to us and because of that, looks and increasing expansion from where we are at of wherever we would be at, in it...

Gravity tends to pull matter together, magnetism isn't relevant at cosmological scales. I don't know what you mean by 'perhaps making it all perpetual...' It's a non-sequitur.

Ok, gravity then, doesn't matter, point is the forces expanding and the forces trying to collapse it are direct proportion to each other, and maybe always have been/will be, ect...

And it not "non-sequitur" because how in any way am I contradicting or saying anything differently from what I previously said or have been (trying to) say...?

Clumps of matter are moving further apart in all directions at ever increasing speed.

Not really, no, it only looks that from where we are at in it... Again, in post # 191 "If we appear to always be the center no matter where we are in the universe, then that has to be wrong, right...? Cause that is not how the expanding of it, or expansion of it is actually happening and/or really looks like either...

So, what would be the "real picture" not taken from that or those points of view or perspectives in it...? If you could look from outside of it, (or above it, or whatever) instead of inside of it, what would it look like...?"

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Not that it looks the same everywhere, but that wherever you are looks like the centre of expansion.

But it does look pretty much the same anywhere, the only exception to that would be if you were near to, or could see and edge to it...

 

[sjastro]

Observations actually run counter to the prediction made by their model. Backed up by the Sloan Digital Survey as well.

View attachment 246181
All they can do is repeatedly try to hand wave the data away, because it fails to fit their model that they have invested so much time in. A failed model that they refuse to give up and look for the correct model.....

Not a single shred of data supports their belief that the universe looks the same from any place. NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF DATA. It is pure belief against the data and in spite of it.....

You have this amazing ability to put your foot in your mouth on a regular basis.
Your Sloan Digital Survey image also includes the surveying of nearby galaxies in gravitationally bound clusters where one would expect to see filaments and lump like structures.
If you were astute enough and had an understanding of the image, you would notice that as one looks towards the top part of the image (which corresponds to increasing distance from the observer), the structures disappear and the galaxy locations take on a more homogeneous distribution.

This corresponds to the "End of Greatness".

The End of Greatness is an observational scale discovered at roughly 100 Mpc (roughly 300 million light-years) where the lumpiness seen in the large-scale structure of the universe is homogenized and isotropized in accordance with the Cosmological Principle.[52] At this scale, no pseudo-random fractalness is apparent.[60] The superclusters and filaments seen in smaller surveys are randomized to the extent that the smooth distribution of the universe is visually apparent. It was not until the redshift surveys of the 1990s were completed that this scale could accurately be observed.

This is supporting evidence for an expanding Universe as expansion has eventually smoothed out the distribution of these more distant older galaxy clusters.

 

[sjastro]

Or what about these:

Which is accurate...?

The top image is from the 2MASS survey and maps the position of the galaxies using galactic co-ordinates where the position of the Sun is located dead centre.
The points are colour coded against their redshift.
In your previous post the image is from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey which maps the red shift against angular position.
The missing data in the survey is due to gas and dust in our galaxy preventing measurements being made.
This is not an issue in the 2MASS survey as imaging is performed in infra red which penetrates the gas and dust.

Both data sets are extremely accurate.
The difference in appearance is due to their different representations,

 

[Neogaia777]

The top image is from the 2MASS survey and maps the position of the galaxies using galactic co-ordinates where the position of the Sun is located dead centre.
The points are colour coded against their redshift.
In your previous post the image is from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey which maps the red shift against angular position.
The missing data in the survey is due to gas and dust in our galaxy preventing measurements being made.
This is not an issue in the 2MASS survey as imaging is performed in infra red which penetrates the gas and dust.

Both data sets are extremely accurate.
The difference in appearance is due to their different representations,

Could you show us a completely accurate picture of known universe maybe...?

On that accounts for all the variables, or whatever needs to considered and/or counted in, ect...?

I want to know what it looks like...?

God Bless!

 

[Tayla]

How old is the universe...?

Very old.

How big is the universe...?

Very big.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The top image is from the 2MASS survey and maps the position of the galaxies using galactic co-ordinates where the position of the Sun is located dead centre.
The points are colour coded against their redshift.
In your previous post the image is from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey which maps the red shift against angular position.
The missing data in the survey is due to gas and dust in our galaxy preventing measurements being made.
This is not an issue in the 2MASS survey as imaging is performed in infra red which penetrates the gas and dust.

Both data sets are extremely accurate.
The difference in appearance is due to their different representations,

No, the difference in appearance is the 2mass catalogs stars, planets, brown dwarfs, nebula, etc, regardless of their redshift, while the Sloan maps galaxies due to their redshift, which is what we are discussing, expansion....... which in modern mythology causes that redshift......

The 2mass is irrelevant in this discussion because it has nothing to do with redshift due to expanding space.

It is not a distance indicator nor recessional indicator, but merely a static map of general position, all bundled together with no recessional velocities considered.

It would be like looking at a static map of the solar system.....

And then thinking you could determine their orbital velocities from that map.....

The Sloan is the only map that can be used when we are discussing expansion, as it is the only map that takes redshift into account....

Basically we have pool balls arranged in concentric circles around the left side pocket, then people thinking if they looked at them from the right side pocket they would magically rearrange themselves to form concentric circles around that pocket..... this is what they put their faith in, total foolery.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have this amazing ability to put your foot in your mouth on a regular basis.
Your Sloan Digital Survey image also includes the surveying of nearby galaxies in gravitationally bound clusters where one would expect to see filaments and lump like structures.
If you were astute enough and had an understanding of the image, you would notice that as one looks towards the top part of the image (which corresponds to increasing distance from the observer), the structures disappear and the galaxy locations take on a more homogeneous distribution.

This corresponds to the "End of Greatness".


This is supporting evidence for an expanding Universe as expansion has eventually smoothed out the distribution of these more distant older galaxy clusters.

The only one putting his foot in his mouth is you......

Since we are looking back in time to the formation of galaxies, when galaxies were less dense and so naturally would be less clumped since they were just forming....

They of course would be more homogeneous because the galaxies had just started to form, let alone start to clump into galaxy clusters, as we see in the “present” or nearby......

Which is why they exclaim with surprise when they see mature looking galaxies or galaxy clusters that far back in time, because their model doesn’t yet give them time to form....

Largest Galaxy Proto-Supercluster Found - Astronomers using ESO’s Very Large Telescope uncover a cosmic titan lurking in the early Universe

“This titanic mass is similar to that of the largest structures observed in the Universe today, but finding such a massive object in the early Universe surprised astronomers.”

Because one “expects” homogenous in the early universe before these structures had time to form.

Don’t even think you are fooling anyone with that line of faulty reasoning. We are not seeing the present when we look at distant galaxies, but according to the model the beginning. The present is here and now, right around us, where they are clumping together into massive galaxy clusters. Expansion of nothing is dead...... get over it..... the present shows galaxies are not expanding apart, but clumping. The past shows they “were” spread out as they started to form.....

 

[sjastro]

No, the difference in appearance is the 2mass catalogs stars, planets, brown dwarfs, nebula, etc, regardless of their redshift, while the Sloan maps galaxies due to their redshift, which is what we are discussing, expansion....... which in modern mythology causes that redshift......

The 2mass is irrelevant in this discussion because it has nothing to do with redshift due to expanding space.

It is not a distance indicator nor recessional indicator, but merely a static map of general position, all bundled together with no recessional velocities considered.

It would be like looking at a static map of the solar system.....
View attachment 246202
And then thinking you could determine their orbital velocities from that map.....

The Sloan is the only map that can be used when we are discussing expansion, as it is the only map that takes redshift into account....

I suggest you look Neogaia777’s 2MASS image and note the colour scheme; do you think the colours are there for decorative purposes?
Here is a hint, look in the bottom right hand corner and check out this link.

 

[sjastro]

The only one putting his foot in his mouth is you......

Since we are looking back in time to the formation of galaxies, when galaxies were less dense and so naturally would be less clumped since they were just forming....

They of course would be more homogeneous because the galaxies had just started to form, let alone start to clump into galaxy clusters, as we see in the “present” or nearby......

Which is why they exclaim with surprise when they see mature looking galaxies or galaxy clusters that far back in time, because their model doesn’t yet give them time to form....

Largest Galaxy Proto-Supercluster Found - Astronomers using ESO’s Very Large Telescope uncover a cosmic titan lurking in the early Universe

“This titanic mass is similar to that of the largest structures observed in the Universe today, but finding such a massive object in the early Universe surprised astronomers.”

Because one “expects” homogenous in the early universe before these structures had time to form.

Don’t even think you are fooling anyone with that line of faulty reasoning. We are not seeing the present when we look at distant galaxies, but according to the model the beginning. The present is here and now, right around us, where they are clumping together into massive galaxy clusters. Expansion of nothing is dead...... get over it..... the present shows galaxies are not expanding apart, but clumping. The past shows they “were” spread out as they started to form.....

Unbelievable for someone who advocates Alfven’s plasma cosmology model you are blissfully unaware you have sunk the model without a trace.
Alfven’s model is static and infinitely old.
Since you think the galaxy density is less in the past, Alfven’s model is comprehensively wrong because it can be neither static as density is independent of time in any static Universe model, nor infinitely old as one could extrapolate to a point in the past where there were no galaxies at all.
In a static Universe matter is recycled from radiation hence stars (and galaxies) would always be in existence.

There is no doubt who has put their foot in their mouth.

If we play the devil’s advocate and ignore that you have completely contradicted yourself, Alfven’s model fails because one would expect the structures to extend out indefinitely as there is no expansion in a static infinitely old Universe.
This of course assumes that Einstein's cosmological constant exists which is a requirement in a static Universe model to prevent the structures from collapsing under gravity.

You really can’t take a trick in this thread.

 

[Neogaia777]

OK, what about this simple question, and please answer with a short and simple response if you can please OK...?

What is causing the expansion of the universe...?

What and where are the force and or forces "coming from" causing this...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

* duplicate *

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Look at the pictures would you, the empty areas are the dark area pockets...

The empty areas are where there is very little matter - because gravity tends to pull matter together, leaving voids.

It is all expanding at the same rate as it is being pulled together... The dark empty areas (again the pictures) are growing slowly at the same rate as they always were, that to us and because of that, looks and increasing expansion from where we are at of wherever we would be at, in it...

No.

And it not "non-sequitur" because how in any way am I contradicting or saying anything differently from what I previously said or have been (trying to) say...?

It was a non-sequitur because it didn't follow logically from the preceding statement.

Not really, no, it only looks that from where we are at in it...

No, it looks like that from anywhere.

Again, in post # 191 "If we appear to always be the center no matter where we are in the universe, then that has to be wrong, right...? Cause that is not how the expanding of it, or expansion of it is actually happening and/or really looks like either...

No, any observer will appear to be at the centre of expansion because the expansion is a scalar expansion of the metric which takes every point away from every other point.

So, what would be the "real picture" not taken from that or those points of view or perspectives in it...? If you could look from outside of it, (or above it, or whatever) instead of inside of it, what would it look like...?"

I refer you to my previous answers to these questions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But it does look pretty much the same anywhere, the only exception to that would be if you were near to, or could see and edge to it...

Yes, things would look different if things were different.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK, what about this simple question, and please answer with a short and simple response if you can please OK...?

What is causing the expansion of the universe...?

What and where are the force and or forces "coming from" causing this...?

As I understand it, the root cause is the physical properties of a universe like ours, as described by Einstein's General Relativity. Depending on certain fundamental physical parameters, this will describe a contracting, static, or expanding universe. The value of those parameters in our universe determines that it expands. The inflationary model says this expansion is the result of the local decay of a metastable 'false vacuum', resulting in a rapidly expanding 'bubble' of 'true vacuum', (e.g. the spacetime we know).

The acceleration of this expansion was not expected and the cause has yet to be determined.

See Expansion of the Universe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The balloon analogy only involves the surface of the balloon and only illustrates how a uniform expansion can move every point on the surface further away from every other point. I even mentioned, in the post where I explained it, that the balloon & raisin bread analogies had their faults:

"...both analogies have been criticised because of the distractions of irrelevant surfaces & edges, inside & outsides..."​

The very distractions you've predictably fallen for But really, anyone with even a passing familiarity with this topic would know the balloon analogy and what it means.

Indeed they don't, and the analogy doesn't suggest that they do

And yet you keep using flawed analogies, because there is nothing in reality that you can use because expansion in every direction does not exist....

It's just like using radio waves in a medium to explain doppler shift, then saying light is just like that except there is no medium......... And then trying to imply the expansion of nothing somehow stretches the waves.......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I suggest you look Neogaia777’s 2MASS image and note the colour scheme; do you think the colours are there for decorative purposes?
Here is a hint, look in the bottom right hand corner and check out this link.

Yet there is no recessional indicator, which only redshift can apply, but ONLY when that redshift is due to recessional velocity... Since they now claim (unlike when the Hubble Law was formulated) that the redshift is not due to recessional velocity, there is no way to correlate distance from redshift. So in reality it is a false map.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Unbelievable for someone who advocates Alfven’s plasma cosmology model you are blissfully unaware you have sunk the model without a trace.
Alfven’s model is static and infinitely old.
Since you think the galaxy density is less in the past, Alfven’s model is comprehensively wrong because it can be neither static as density is independent of time in any static Universe model, nor infinitely old as one could extrapolate to a point in the past where there were no galaxies at all.
In a static Universe matter is recycled from radiation hence stars (and galaxies) would always be in existence.

There is no doubt who has put their foot in their mouth.

No, we are going by your explanation...... You claim it proves expansion because they are less dense the further away.

This is false because they would under your own model be less dense because they had simply started to form and had not yet had time to form those large clusters.

My model is unaffected because as we noted, they observe mature galaxies where they should not exist under your model, and large scale structures that should not exist under your model. Both fit just fine in my model.....

If we play the devil’s advocate and ignore that you have completely contradicted yourself, Alfven’s model fails because one would expect the structures to extend out indefinitely as there is no expansion in a static infinitely old Universe.
This of course assumes that Einstein's cosmological constant exists which is a requirement in a static Universe model to prevent the structures from collapsing under gravity.

You really can’t take a trick in this thread.

And yet as we look out we see fully mature galaxies and large galaxy clusters..... You are confusing the reality of what we should expect and what we observe, with your model that fails.....

Einstein's cosmological constant is a requirement in your expanding model as well. Your point being????? Or did you just not have one but decided to just throw something in there......

It isn't required in mine, because I have the electromagnetic force which is 10^39 powers stronger than gravity. Oh, that's right, you are so used to ignoring that force you forget about it..... you are the one that is hampered with only one tool in your tool box..... that's why you have to keep adding Fairie Dust, remember. You got only one tool to work with in your models..... and then instead of using that force, you add Fairie Dust Dark Energy to avoid electric and magnetic fields....

I can accelerate just fine, without unknown Fairie Dust. We do that in particle accelerators every single day... I can also attract just fine.... we do that in the laboratory every day as well..... Science is fine..... it is when you ignore that science is when Fairie Dust is needed....