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

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Kind of hard to determine the cause of it when electricity is ignored in the universe..... Same with Dark Matter. Kind of hard to determine it's cause when they keep ignoring those plasma halos of more than twice the mass of the galaxy right where the Dark Matter was supposed to exist. It just isn't dark any more.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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....

Lol! Ever heard of expanding foam?

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.........

Well it so happens that radio waves and light are the same thing - electromagnetic radiation. Physics 101.

It's almost as if you're deliberately using this thread to demonstrate your lack of knowledge, from basic geometry up to special relativity and beyond...

And then trying to imply the expansion of nothing somehow stretches the waves.......

No, the expansion of space. Nothing doesn't exist, by definition.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol! Ever heard of expanding foam?

Ever hear of needing to keep injecting more foam to prevent voids from forming?

Well it so happens that radio waves and light are the same thing - electromagnetic radiation. Physics 101.

Typo, sound waves, not radio waves. but that you didn't catch that either shows you didn't understand the Doppler effect and using sound waves in a medium to describe light in no medium....

It's almost as if you're deliberately using this thread to demonstrate your lack of knowledge, from basic geometry up to special relativity and beyond...

And yet you can't use any actual science to back up your claims..... In fact, thought telling me about radio waves being light when it is sound waves propagating through a medium that produces doppler was somehow correcting me, not even realizing you showed your own misunderstanding from my simple typo.....

No, the expansion of space. Nothing doesn't exist, by definition.

What is space made of if it is expanding?

 

[SkyWriting]

Not old and encapsulated within a firmament.

Scripture says the mountains are ancient at least.
The rain is pretty new.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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...

You got to remember, there is no actual proof of any expansion. Pictures taken of galaxies 100 years ago are in the same relative position today as they were then.

The only reason they believe in expansion is because of cosmological redshift.... Nothing ever moves from the oldest picture taken to the newest picture taken except minutely... despite their claim that some of these galaxies are receding at velocities close to c.....

But their interpretation of cosmological redshift is flawed.....

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

It has nothing to do with magical expansion of nothing (empty space). It is due solely to the fact of light interacting with charged particles, the greater the distance the more particles light must propagate through, which is why the redshift shows in a 360 degree sphere, not that everything is expanding away from us and everything else at the same time.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Gravity isn't doing anything until those plasma filaments that are everywhere scavenge the surrounding area and pull it into clumps of matter.....

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

".. 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"

It is the electromagnetic forces that are scavenging the surrounding space and creating those voids.

In case you have forgotten when a gas is released into space it doesn't coalesce, it disperses. Only plasma coalesces from the electric and magnetic forces acting on the particles..... Per actual laboratory experiments, not fantasy models....

It is only after (in solar systems) when gravity becomes the dominant force...

"The plasma constituents will recombine and become neutral, and thus no longer under the influence of the electromagnetic forcing."

and hence GR is 99.8% accurate in the solar system and needs 95% Fairie Dust added to it outside the solar system. You keep applying the wrong physics to the wrong state of matter....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ever hear of needing to keep injecting more foam to prevent voids from forming?

It's an example of expansion in every direction, nothing more. Like an analogy, it's only relevant for the specific concept it was invoked to illustrate - in this case, expansion in every direction.

Typo, sound waves, not radio waves. but that you didn't catch that either shows you didn't understand the Doppler effect and using sound waves in a medium to describe light in no medium....

And yet you can't use any actual science to back up your claims..... In fact, thought telling me about radio waves being light when it is sound waves propagating through a medium that produces doppler was somehow correcting me, not even realizing you showed your own misunderstanding from my simple typo.....

I'm not responsible for your errors. The Doppler effect applies equally to light (it applies to all waves from a source in relative motion), whether in a medium or in a vacuum. Is this something else you didn't know?

What is space made of if it is expanding?

No-one can say for sure; there are a number of ideas - it may well be made up of the various quantum fields which extend throughout the universe, so one could say quantum foam. One version suggests the Higgs field is fundamental, one suggests it's gravity, and so-on. Loop Quantum Gravity represents it as Einstinian spacetime quantised into tiny loops making up spin-networks or spin-foam.

I'm not well up on the details, but there's plenty of information out there if you really want to learn about it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Gravity isn't doing anything until those plasma filaments that are everywhere scavenge the surrounding area and pull it into clumps of matter.....

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

".. 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"

It is the electromagnetic forces that are scavenging the surrounding space and creating those voids.

In case you have forgotten when a gas is released into space it doesn't coalesce, it disperses. Only plasma coalesces from the electric and magnetic forces acting on the particles..... Per actual laboratory experiments, not fantasy models....

It is only after (in solar systems) when gravity becomes the dominant force...

"The plasma constituents will recombine and become neutral, and thus no longer under the influence of the electromagnetic forcing."

and hence GR is 99.8% accurate in the solar system and needs 95% Fairie Dust added to it outside the solar system. You keep applying the wrong physics to the wrong state of matter....

You remind me of another poster on these forums, who simply couldn't help himself trying to divert every thread onto the subject of his personal obsession. Maybe it's a syndrome...

 

[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....

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.

What absolute rubbish.
I suggest you reread my post and the link provided that explicitly states 2MASS is also a redshift survey.
If the 2MASS map is false then the SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey) is equally the case yet you parade the data as evidence for “your model”.
If there is no correlation between redshift and expansion then explain how the filamentary structure is prevalent at low z and progressively disappears as z increases.

 

[sjastro]

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.

No it’s your definition of the BB that is nonsensical.
The “End of Greatness” begins at a distance of around 300 million light years, the youngest galaxy known is approximately 500 million years old.
In case you don’t understand the significance of this, it means the vast percentage of galaxies have been around for billions of years and formed clusters before the scale affects of expansion took over.
This is clearly supported by the SDSS data.

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.....

What is quite ridiculous is your reference link explicitly mentions the relationship between redshift, expansion and the mature age of the cluster.

“Light reaching Earth from extremely distant galaxies took a long time to travel, giving us a window into the past when the Universe was much younger. This wavelength of this light has been stretched by the expansion of the Universe over its journey, an effect known as cosmological redshift. More distant, older objects have a correspondingly larger redshift, leading astronomers to often use redshift and age interchangeably. Hyperion’s redshift of 2.45 means that astronomers observed the proto-supercluster as it was 2.3 billion years after the Big Bang.”

It proves you are one hopelessly confused individual using a supportive link you ultimately disagree with.

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.....

As I have shown above it is your interpretation of the BB that fails.
What happened to the “there are less galaxies in the past in my (Alven’s) model” which not only destroys your (Alfven’s) model but also violates increasing entropy in an isolated system, but is not a problem in BB theory as I briefly touched on in a previous post.
Typically you side step the problems raised because you lack the capacity to defend your (Alfven’s) model.

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......

Obviously the irony went right over your head that a static Universe requires the sort of ingredients that you summarily dismiss as fairie dust.

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....

Now you are being a troll for bringing up the role of electromagnetic forces which was refuted ages ago.
You failed to address why a three body system using electromagnetic forces is unstable, why the electromagnetic force does not apply at large scales due to Debye shielding or your magic plasma which bears no resemblance to real plasma.

I should in fact update the magic vs real plasma table which some of your latest additions.

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....

This is just a straight out inane comment.
Particle accelerators and laboratories are involved in testing theories not be working models of the Universe.

 

[sjastro]

You remind me of another poster on these forums, who simply couldn't help himself trying to divert every thread onto the subject of his personal obsession. Maybe it's a syndrome...

If it is the same individual I think you are referring to he got his marching orders for persistent trolling and dishonesty (and fair slice of personal attacks).
Note the commonality.............

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If it is the same individual I think you are referring to he got his marching orders for persistent trolling and dishonesty (and fair slice of personal attacks).
Note the commonality.............

Yes, it was the guy who'd become more and more insulting and rude as the flaws in his pet theory were explained to him. I don't think he was a deliberately malicious person, he just couldn't help himself.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, it was the guy who'd become more and more insulting and rude as the flaws in his pet theory were explained to him. I don't think he was a deliberately malicious person, he just couldn't help himself.

I respectfully disagree.

There is clear and abundant evidence across many science and astronomy forums that deniers of the concordance/expanding universe model are engaged in a deliberate campaign aimed at bringing it down and replacing it with the irrational "Electric Universe" cult model in order to divert funding.

I'd call this as being 'deliberately malicious' behaviour and there is little difference between such behaviours and the individuals who consistently exhibit them in a web based medium .. (Not that it makes one iota of difference to a model which is well supported in theory and in direct observation, mind you).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I respectfully disagree.

There is clear and abundant evidence across many science and astronomy forums that deniers of the concordance/expanding universe model are engaged in a deliberate campaign aimed at bringing it down and replacing it with the irrational "Electric Universe" cult model in order to divert funding.

I'd call this as being 'deliberately malicious' behaviour and there is little difference between such behaviours and the individuals who consistently exhibit them in a web based medium .. (Not that it makes one iota of difference to a model which is well supported in theory and in direct observation, mind you).

OK, that doesn't surprise me - he may well have had an EU propagation agenda. What I meant was that I don't think his behaviour (becoming rude and insulting) was deliberately malicious (it didn't help his credibility) but a result of his frustration boiling over at having every claim rationally refuted.

 

[Neogaia777]

@FrumiousBandersnatch (and to all)...

You do agree that from wherever we are in the universe that the expansion appears to happening outward from us, correct...? And the stuff further away from us moving away faster the further it is away from us, ect, correct...?

But we know that is not the "actual case", right...?

So how is it really happening...? If we were able to take a view or look from either above or outside of it/that, what would we see that is actually happening, as far as the "actual expansion goes...?

And where are the force or forces causing the actual expansion, coming from and how fast (or slow) is it really, actually happening...? (Versus, and according to the way we always see it, in it, from wherever we are in it)...? (which is not the truth or the actual case)...?

So, what is the actual case...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

What if there are multiple or many areas (the voids) "pushing out" in direct proportion and in a "balance" to the force and tendency of gravity to suck it all back in (on itself)...?

This balance of these kind of opposite forces are "everywhere" and not just on the macroscopic level, but also on the microscopic level as well... so why would the macroscopic level be any different...?

God Bless!

 

[SelfSim]

...
You do agree that from wherever we are in the universe that the expansion appears to happening outward from us, correct...?

.. 'away from us' .. not ..'outward from us'.

And the stuff further away from us moving away faster the further it is away from us, ect, correct...?

At cosmologically significant distances/redshifts .. yes (generally .. speaking).

But we know that is not the "actual case", right...?

No .. we don't know that at all. In fact we do know that it is what you refer to as being 'the actual case'.

So how is it really happening...? If we were able to take a view or look from either above or outside of it/that, what would we see that is actually happening, as far as the "actual expansion goes...?

Such a hypothetical leads nowhere because there is no evidence that there is an 'outside of' what we can observe (or have observed). Therefore the observed expansion cannot be said as being 'into' something else. Its everywhere we look at cosmologically significant distances/redhshifts.. that's all we know (or have evidence to support).

And where are the force or forces causing the actual expansion, coming from and how fast (or slow) is it really, actually happening...? (Versus, and according to the way we always see it, in it, from wherever we are in it)...? (which is not the truth or the actual case)...?

So, what is the actual case...?

The 'actual case' is what we observe .. which is universal expansion in all directions at cosmologically significant distances/redshifts.
If we knew exactly what caused it, there'd be many Nobel prizes given to those who can explain that. The expansion rates have been measured many times over to good accuracies. (You can look up the actual values yourself).

 

[Neogaia777]

.. 'away from us' .. not ..'outward from us'.

What the difference...? It either is, or isn't what it looks like, so, which is it...?

At cosmologically significant distances/redshifts .. yes (generally .. speaking).

But that is not the way it is actually happening...?

Unless your suggesting it is, ect...? Are you...?

No .. we don't know that at all.

Yes we do, it is very evident based on the evidence and data we now have...?

Unless your going to suggest that we are actually in the direct center of the universe, or where the supposed big bang happened and/or began...?

And that is not the (actual) case right...?

Such a hypothetical leads nowhere because there is no evidence that there is an 'outside of' what we can observe (or have observed). Therefore the observed expansion cannot be said as being 'into' something else. Its everywhere we look at cosmologically significant distances/redhshifts.. that's all we know (or have evidence to support).

All we have to do is imagine how it would be if we were moving, and as we were moving through it to another location... And what we would see, which is, that, it would always look (appear to be) as if everything was expanding outward and away from us, further objects at greater speeds, ect, even as we would move through it... And consider that... Then consider what is really happening and or going on...?

The 'actual case' is what we observe .. which is universal expansion in all directions at cosmologically significant distances/redshifts.

And equally everywhere (is what is really happening) and it's probably happening slowly (relatively speaking)...

If we knew exactly what caused it, there'd be many Nobel prizes given to those who can explain that. The expansion rates have been measured many times over to good accuracies. (You can look up the actual values yourself).

Well then, let me propose a "theory" then:

The dark areas or voids that we see in a picture of the universe is what is causing the expansion, "equally everywhere and slowly" (again, relatively speaking) (causing things nearer to us to seem to moving away from us slower and further things faster, ect) (and it would look like that anywhere and everywhere or no matter where we were in it, ect) (Anyway) And not some one single center point of origin, or big bang explosion, from a one single one area or center point (very, very far away from us) (that we cannot observe much less "prove"), (but is more like whole bunch of them, or a lot of them) (lots of areas pushing out causing the expansion, ect)... And all "pushing out on everything else", growing and/or expanding (again, slowly, relatively speaking) "equally" and that is how the universe is (actually) expanding... (and is why it looks the way it does, ect)...

And, then, once you grab hold of that, gravity trying to "pull it all back in around those areas of expansion"... And then, the "picture" you get from that, ect...

God Bless!

 

[SelfSim]

... The dark areas or voids that we see in a picture of the universe is what is causing the expansion, "equally everywhere and slowly" (again, relatively speaking) (causing things nearer to us to seem to moving away from us slower and further things faster, ect) (and it would look like that anywhere and everywhere or no matter where we were in it, ect)

Well .. if ya say so, I suppose. But why would they do that?
Is it a 'just-so' story .. Ie: because its just the way it is .. because you say so .. eh?

.. (Anyway) And not some one single center point of origin, or big bang explosion, from a one single one area or center point (very, very far away from us) (that we cannot observe much less "prove"),

Who said the big bang was 'a big bang explosion from one single area or center point'?
That's not a concept from the mainstream model.
Where did that come from? .. Was it you?
And who's trying to prove that anyway?

.. (but is more like whole bunch of them, or a lot of them) (lots of areas pushing out causing the expansion, ect)... And all "pushing out on everything else", growing and/or expanding (again, slowly, relatively speaking) "equally" and that is how the universe is (actually) expanding... (and is why it looks the way it does, ect)...

Ahh .. a story (or parable) eh? .. Like the ones told around a campfire by a bunch of bored minds, eh?

And, then, once you grab hold of that, gravity trying to "pull it all back in around those areas of expansion"... And then, the "picture" you get from that, ect...

The picture I get from that is that you made up a big story .. but why did ya do that?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You do agree that from wherever we are in the universe that the expansion appears to happening outward from us, correct...? And the stuff further away from us moving away faster the further it is away from us, ect, correct...?

Yes.

But we know that is not the "actual case", right...?

Wrong. To the best of our knowledge, this is really happening, and it is exactly what we expect to see if the universe is undergoing a scalar expansion of the metric. Wherever you stand in the universe, that's what you'll see.