What exists beyond the known universe?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: skywalcore

Can you test the evolution of mankind in a lab?

 

Yes, of course. That is what biologists, zoologists, geologists, paleonthologists, and scientists in a long list of other areas do.

 

Can you test the Big Bang in a lab?

 

No, you probably can't. However, the Big Bang *theory* is testable. One of the predictions of the Big Bang theory is that matter will be uniformly distributed across the universe. This is observed. Another is that the temperature of the universe will cool over time. This is observed. Yet another, which is part of the inflationary Big Bang theory, is that the universe expands. This is observed. The WMAP project, which studies the background microwave radioation, is one of the many projects which study the birth of the universe.

 

We can then measure the curvature of the universe and find out whether it is flat or curved, whether it is open or closed. Based on those measurements, we can make predictions based on the observations.

 

Some of those predictions will never ever be finally proven, because we will not be around to see the end of the universe (if there will ever be one). But predictions which are proven wrong will show that the theory, or parts of it, are wrong and either needs reworking or trashing. This is how science works.

 

By your own definition, you have eliminated two of the most common beliefs among us scientists.

 

Really? How? What I have done is to provide you with the basics of the scientific method and asked you to apply it to your own theory.

 

What the theory predicts is how the universe ends and how it starts up again.

 

No. This is what the theory assumes. It does not offer any evidence to back up this assumption, so it does not make any predictions. For something to be a prediction, you would need to be able to say:

 

"We observe this and that. Given X, we think that Y will happen."

 

I miss the "this and that" part of your theory. You provide us with an X, which is the marbles, and a Y, which is that the universe is infinite (or swap them around if you like, it still is incomplete). That is why I keep saying your theory is upside down. You have the solution, but not the equation. So your "theory" is not a theory at all - it is a belief.

 

To know when this is expected to happen would require us to measure past the furthest edge of expanding matter. Then we would have to measure past the empty space that is ahead of that matter. Then once we are able to detect more matter we take the rate of expansion and deduce an equation that tells us how much time we have left until our universe collides with the neighboring universe.

 

The assumption here is that the universe is part of an ensemble of universes. Yet you offer no evidence for this, no studies to back it up, no connection between the idea of multiple universes and the birth of our own. I have read lots of articles and several books on this issue, and do in fact think that it is likely that there are infinitely many universes. But I can't produce a theory which is testable for it. There is, however, a line of thought called the anthropic principle which almost requires there to an endless amount of universes out there for us to exist in this one.

 

I don't see how you are lost on the first sentence. What is perfection to you? To me perfection is the ultimate state of being. It is prime example of something. In order for something to be infinite [doesn't have an end or a beginning], that is a powerful and bold statement. That is an ultimate state of being.

 

See, now we're getting somewhere. You admit that perfection needs to be defined. So "perfection" needs to have a value in your theory. Saying "it is th

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

I have NOT ONCE claimed the BB theory is wrong.

Hmmm, perhaps..

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

ether the BB theory is wrong, or the current theories as to galaxy formation are wrong.

or

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Uncle.

 

In my mind the Big Bang theory is less than totally persuading...

Ya and HAVING "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are the same as "Plans to think about possibly eventually having Weapons of Mass Destruction if we ever get the chance!".

 

Play the "I didn't really say that!" if you want. But you fool no one.

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

I have just claimed that the evidence is not perfect, and thus there is room for other theories.

And we keep asking for ANY of these "other theories". But someohow all of these other theories you keep ragging about never seem to be included in your replies! All you want to do is attack the BB. YOu have yet to offer a single valid reason to reject it nor any valid alternatives.

There are things so clear and certain that they are beyond debate,

OH? I would like to know ONE of those.

 

But then I am asking YOU to provide some FACTS behind another of your claims, And we know how useless that is!

To ascribe the BB theory to this category I do not need proof, but only need assert that totally convincing proof does not exist.

You can continue to intentionally delude yourself with what ever mumbo jumbo you wish. But if you can not provide FACTS and ALTERNATIVES, it is only yourself and those that also can not follow logical thought process, that you convince.

I am sorry that I can find no pattern of words that you can read as I mean them to be written, but there you go. You are asking me to provide proof for something I never said.

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

I have just claimed that the evidence is not perfect, and thus there is room for other theories.

YOU posted this. Now provide PROOF for it! Provide "other theories" and proof for them. And don't lie about having posted it. In case you haven;t caught on yet. Your posts are archived here. So when you CLAIM to have not posted something, ANYONE can go back and see that you DID post it!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

And before you get angry with me (well, may be too late for that), please understand that I've seen an endless stream of bold statements in these forums over the past two and a half years. I would like to see some of them be backed up with something I can observe and study, not something I need to take on face value.

Yes, how many times do we get this approach? How many times do we spend considerable effort trying to explain what PROOF and FACTS are only to never get any?

It is a good thing to have ideas and share them with others. However, claiming them to be true without evidence is not.

This particular concept seems to be mere tautology.

 

I've enjoyed your approach to responding to this new visitor. Let's see if they catch on. It could become an interesting discussion if they do.

[BlameTheEx]

Freethinker

 

Another novel I see.

 

OK. Ignoring your continuing debate on semantics, which I am now totally bored with, you ask for other theories. Fair enough! However, you also ask for proof for them. LOL, you don't ask for much! My whole contention was that there IS NO CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THEORY.

 

About the only evidence we have, on which to hang ANY theory is the red shift. There is the fact that there doesn't appear to be a star in every possible direction, which eliminates a few possibilities, and the 3K background radiation which may just be the temperature of dark matter, or the light of far red shifted galaxies.

 

We did hope that the Hubbell telescope would see the edge of the universe and thus give us another convincing parameter. Unfortunately, as yet, apart for the red shift, it's not clear that most distantly examined bits of space are any different from local space. The galaxies there are surpassingly normal. There are hints of differences (not as many galaxies as locally), but the surveys are not sufficient for it to be more than a hint.

 

Any theory that accounts for the red shift, and doesn't otherwise contradict astronomical observations is in with a chance. I mentioned 3 in my post on Page 6, dated 0/8/01/2004. They were all based on the assumption that the red shift is dependant on a property of space. I will add one more here. The possibility that space is nether expanding, nor appearing to. The BB could have been purely an explosion of matter in an already existing universe of large, or infinite size. In this version there is an edge to the matter in the universe. Past this edge of the explosion there is just empty space.

 

You may show some concern that all but one of the theories I have offered do include some sort of a big bang, but I have been referring to THE BB theory. I differentiate that from ALL BB theories. Sorry if that confuses, but if it does, tough. I am not entering into any more protracted debates on semantics.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

OK. Ignoring your continuing debate on semantics, which I am now totally bored with, you ask for other theories. Fair enough! However, you also ask for proof for them. LOL, you don't ask for much! My whole contention was that there IS NO CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THEORY.

 

Obviously, there is no such thing as a proven theory. That would be a theorEM.

 

About the only evidence we have, on which to hang ANY theory is the red shift.

 

Plus the other ways to measure the expansion of the universe, and the background microwave radiation, and the temperature, and the age of the stars, among other things. The red shift is only one of the many things which are studied - much like the red color on Mars is due to rust on the surface (but there is more to Mars than the red color).

 

There is the fact that there doesn't appear to be a star in every possible direction, which eliminates a few possibilities, and the 3K background radiation which may just be the temperature of dark matter, or the light of far red shifted galaxies.

 

That there is not a star in every direction is a direct prediction of the Big Bang theory, since otherwise the universe would be infinite and there would be an infinite amount of stars.

 

What do you base the claim that the background radiation temperature may "just be the temperature of dark matter"? Normal matter does not have a uniform temperature. That it is "the light of far red shifted galaxies" is also a strange claim - light does not have a temperature, but is colored by it.

 

We did hope that the Hubbell telescope would see the edge of the universe and thus give us another convincing parameter. Unfortunately, as yet, apart for the red shift, it's not clear that most distantly examined bits of space are any different from local space. The galaxies there are surpassingly normal. There are hints of differences (not as many galaxies as locally), but the surveys are not sufficient for it to be more than a hint.

 

You seem to be very hung up on the issue of red shift, which is strange to me. I don't know who thought the Hubble would see the end of the universe. However, the WMAP probe does investigate the background radiation, which is the remnant of the big bang. It is seen in every direction from where we are.

 

I have said this before and I will repeat it: it is NOT a mystery that there were galaxies quite early. There are NOT signs that any of these galaxies are older than the universe. Please post any information you have which shows anything to the contrary (and not just articles which do not support your claims like last time).

 

Any theory that accounts for the red shift, and doesn't otherwise contradict astronomical observations is in with a chance. I mentioned 3 in my post on Page 6, dated 0/8/01/2004. They were all based on the assumption that the red shift is dependant on a property of space. I will add one more here. The possibility that space is nether expanding, nor appearing to. The BB could have been purely an explosion of matter in an already existing universe of large, or infinite size. In this version there is an edge to the matter in the universe. Past this edge of the explosion there is just empty space.

 

This is a possible solution. Our universe may be a bubble in another universe. However, none of the galaxies in our universe would come from another universe. We don't know if the fundamental laws of our universe would also be the same in the universe that would eventually surround us, or if they are very different. There may not be an "edge of the explosion". The Big Bang theory assumes that space was created in the big bang, and that inflation caused the universe to grow exponentially for a very brief time. Our "bubble universe" would probably

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Freethinker

 

Another novel I see.

If I did not have to waste so much space documenting the posts you claim to have not posted, my posts would be a lot smaller. e.g. your claim to have not claimed the BB was wrong, followed by your posts claiming it is.

OK. Ignoring your continuing debate on semantics, which I am now totally bored with,

Learn to use terms in well established and agree meanings and we won't have to spend time RE-establishing them.

 

All of these additional diversions are only there because YOUR posts require these excursions to construct logical discussions.

you ask for other theories. Fair enough! However, you also ask for proof for them. LOL, you don't ask for much!

No I dont. I don't ask for ANYTHING other than logical arguments and supporting proof of assertions.

 

If that is too much to ask of you, why do you bother with a site dedicated to that approach?

 

My whole contention was that there IS NO CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN THEORY.

Your POSTED contention is that the BB is not supportable as the best theory to explain available evidence nor does it provide the most accurate predictions. At least that is the end result of rejecting ANY established theory that IS considered to be the most accurate. To reject ANY theory because it is not "CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN" is to reject EVERY theory held by Science.

About the only evidence we have, on which to hang ANY theory is the red shift.

This is merely YOUR CLAIM. It is NOT supportable based on agreed scientific knowledge by those most directly related to specific research on the subject.

There is the fact that there doesn't appear to be a star in every possible direction,

As would be predicted by the BB. Thus supporting the BB

which eliminates a few possibilities,

But NOT the BB

and the 3K background radiation which may just be the temperature of dark matter,

Ah yes, Dark Matter, the proposed result of the BB which explains the increase in expansion rate of the Universe. It does not in any way dispute the BB, it in fact enhances our understanding of it.

or the light of far red shifted galaxies.

Which again meshes perfectly with the BB.

We did hope that the Hubbell telescope would see the edge of the universe

"Astronomers reach the 'edge' of Universe

...The Subaru Deep Field (SDF) image, produced by the Japanese Subaru Telescope in Hawaii, goes almost to the edge of the observable Universe.... Obtaining the SDF was one of the first tasks for the Subaru Telescope after it was commissioned in 1998.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1343171.stm

 

Any other unfounded assertions to dispel? Any other topics that will require a novel from me to correct?

and thus give us another convincing parameter. Unfortunately, as yet, apart for the red shift, it's not clear that most distantly examined bits of space are any different from local space.

OK, another unfounded assertion to dispel.

 

From the same site:

 

"The image shows large elliptical galaxies, faint galaxies of intense blue, and puzzling red objects thought to be youthful star systems gorged with dust... Some galaxies are clearly interacting with one another, and others are the bluest and the reddest objects ever detected in space."

You may show some concern that all but

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Too bad. Semantics is an important aspect of the discussion here at Hypography...

 

If you're not ready to discuss semantics, you might be in the wrong place. Tough.

Ever notice that those that complain about having to stick to established termonology are also those that don't seem to be able to provide factual support for their claims? It seems the less they deal with FACTS, the less they want to be held to what they actually post.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: Tormod

 

Too bad. Semantics is an important aspect of the discussion here at Hypography...

 

If you're not ready to discuss semantics, you might be in the wrong place. Tough.

 

Ever notice that those that complain about having to stick to established termonology are also those that don't seem to be able to provide factual support for their claims? It seems the less they deal with FACTS, the less they want to be held to what they actually post.

 

Well, to be fair we all get it wrong now and then. But to blindly ignore that there is a disagreement about terms, and claim the right to define them without any evidence, is not exactly a good way to participate in any discussion.

 

Maybe we really should blame the ex...

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Maybe we really should blame the ex...

 

I blame mine at every chance! And it is ALWAYS justified! :-)

[Tormod]

I just posted an interesting article about the age of the Milky Way (our galaxy).

 

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=34272

 

From the introduction:

How old is the Milky Way? When did the first stars in our galaxy ignite? New observations show that it may be only 200 million years younger than the universe itself.

[BlameTheEx]

Tormod

 

"Plus the other ways to measure the expansion of the universe, and the background microwave radiation, and the temperature, and the age of the stars, among other things. The red shift is only one of the many things which are studied - much like the red color on Mars is due to rust on the surface (but there is more to Mars than the red color)."

 

Is there another way to measure the expansion of the universe other than by red shift? I am more than a little excited. Please tell me more. It would make a lot of difference.

 

The background microwave radiation I have already covered. It is the same matter as the 3K background radiation.

 

The age of stars is does give a minimum age for the universe, but no earlier than the that of the time taken for the light of the most redshifted galaxies gives us. Still, fair point. I should have mentioned it. I had forgotten that there were religious theories that gave the age as considerably younger.

 

If you would go further into the other things studied, I for one would be grateful.

 

"What do you base the claim that the background radiation temperature may "just be the temperature of dark matter"? Normal matter does not have a uniform temperature. That it is "the light of far red shifted galaxies" is also a strange claim - light does not have a temperature, but is colored by it."

 

I will go into this in a little more detail. By "Dark matter" I mean that there may be a fair amount of matter that is not emitting any radiation it has not absorbed. The absorbed radiation of surrounding stars is going to warm it up to some extent. Perhaps, on average, that extent is 3K absolute. The effect of the dark matter would then be to convert some starlight to the 3K microwave radiation detected.

 

As to light having a temperature, It can indeed be said to do so. Admittedly only as an approximation. The colour of a light source corresponds to a particular temperature. The higher the temperature, the shorter the average wavelength of the light emitted. A galaxy will emit light on many wavelengths, but in broad terms there is an average wavelength for its light that corresponds to a temperature. Red shift that galaxy and its apparent temperature drops. Red shift it enough and the apparent temperature drops to 3K. By that point it is (again apparently) radiating mostly microwaves.

 

If the universe goes on a lot further than we can so far detect, there may be an awful lot of extremely distant galaxies with output shifted down into the microwave range. Too weak for individual detection, the combined output would be an undefined blur. You get absorption lines for a single galaxy, but not for a mess of them of differing red shifts. The output may well be indistinguishable from a 3K background radiation.

 

Ether way, the mechanisms I am suggesting are identical to those for background radiation from the BB. Nobody supposes that it was originally emitted as microwaves. Things were a lot hotter at that point. Ether the radiation from then has suffered drastic red shifting, or it has been absorbed and re-radiated, as heat, by dark matter. I believe the later is the current theory. There is no way to directly determine the original frequencies of the source of this 3K background radiation.

 

"If you're not ready to discuss semantics, you might be in the wrong place. Tough."

 

Hm. Fair point. Let me put another way. If what I was trying to say, and what Freethinker thinks I have said differ, I will spend some time trying to sort it out, but the point has come where I just have to give up. As you put it. Tough. I am afraid the same must go for you. I have already explained that I did not intend my words to be interpreted as saying their are galaxies older than the universe, but still you harp on about it. Still if you, as editor, reckon this website would be a better place without me, then say so, and I will go elsewhere.

 

Freethinker

 

Right. I am ignoring further debate of what you interpretat

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Still if you, as editor, reckon this website would be a better place without me, then say so, and I will go elsewhere.

 

For the record: I do not want to see you leave Hypography simply because of heated arguments. You - and indeed your opinions - are of course very welcome here. I was merely taking you up on the "tough" statement. Let's all stop that kind of show-stopping right now and stay on topic.

 

The rest of your post needs some studying on my behalf so I'll get back to it.

[BlameTheEx]

Tormod

 

The voice of reason. Please yes. I dearly do want to stay on topic. I am here in the hope of learning more, not showing my superiority. Anybody who shows flaws in my arguments I will embrace as a brother. At least I will if they do so politely. I would be delighted if the sarcasm stops.

[wisdumn]

Originally posted by: Evanescence

we'll never know whats beyond the universe really will we? i mean it's really interesting but if God does exist, he wouldn't have wanted us to go beyond the universe because, after all, that is our home. we get used to time, space, matter, etc. because thats whats meant to happen. how could we live wothout time? without space? without matter? im confusing myself! lol! if God is true, can science still be true as well?

 

i think(emphasize THINK) that science can only lead you to God,whether you choose to accept that that is where it leads you is your choice. ---also off topic real quick-- evanescence, if you like the band that your name is after, i'd like to invite you to check out a band called Switchblade Symphony. i think you'll enjoy them immensely. -wisdumn

[BlameTheEx]

I found this fascinating press release on the "Hubble Ultra Deep field"

 

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/text/

 

There is a lot to ponder here.

 

"The final ACS image, assembled by Anton Koekemoer of the Space Telescope Science Institute, is studded with a wide range of galaxies of various sizes, shapes, and colors. In vibrant contrast to the image's rich harvest of classic spiral and elliptical galaxies, there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting. Their strange shapes are a far cry from the majestic spiral and elliptical galaxies we see today. These oddball galaxies chronicle a period when the universe was more chaotic. Order and structure were just beginning to emerge."

 

This must be a fairly conclusive refutation of any purely "Steady State" theory of the universe. Clearly it was very different then.

 

"The NICMOS sees even farther than the ACS. The NICMOS reveals the farthest galaxies ever seen, because the expanding universe has stretched their light into the near-infrared portion of the spectrum. "The NICMOS provides important additional scientific content to cosmological studies in the HUDF," says Rodger Thompson of the University of Arizona and the NICMOS Principal Investigator. The ACS uncovered galaxies that existed 800 million years after the big bang (at a redshift of 7). But the NICMOS may have spotted galaxies that lived just 400 million years after the birth of the cosmos (at a redshift of 12). Thompson must confirm the NICMOS discovery with follow-up research."

 

Why does a redshift of 12 correspond to an age only 400 million years greater than a redshift of 7? The answer lies on the assumption that there was a BB, and the date of that bang has been, with some degree of accuracy, measured. In both cases the galaxies just didnt't have time to get very far. No matter what the red shift, by this calculation, the age of the galaxy will be less that that of the BB.

 

The BB date is a simple extrapolation of the hubble constant. It assumes that the perceived velocity of distant galaxies is real, and (with the possible exception of deceleration due to gravitational forces) constant. If for some reason these assumptions are wrong, then these galaxies may well be rather further away in distance, and thus time. This would certainly be the case if the Hubble constant remained a linear constant at such distances.

 

There is some chance yet that the universe's age is not what it seems. If the BB was a simple explosion of matter in pre-existing universe, then the maths works. However if, as many suppose, the BB was an explosion, or expansion, of space the matter is less clear cut. The mechanics of an expanding universe need not follow that of a firecracker. The expansion could be non-linear.

 

I still maintain that there is some possibility that the red shift is a property of space and the universe is not expanding. That would also throw the age of these distant galaxies wide open.

 

Another question of interest is the size of these distant galaxies. If we view the BB as an explosion of matter in a pre-existing universe we can calculate size easily enough. However if the universe itself is expanding, the answer may be very different.

 

The analogy of comparing the universe to the surface of a 4 (or maybe 5) dimensional balloon that is being pumped up leads to an apparent paradox. In this version, whatever direction we point our telescope in, we should see distant galaxies from a time when the universe was younger and smaller. But how can such a small universe cover such a large field of view? There is only one possible answer. There is a distortion of perspective. Beyond a certain point things stop getting smaller with distance, and start getting bigger. Those distan

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Is there another way to measure the expansion of the universe other than by red shift? I am more than a little excited. Please tell me more. It would make a lot of difference.

To start with, the expansion was predicted from Einstein's Relativity math. Which he then fudged to hide it. Hubble's usage of red shift was an after the fact way of confirming it and forcing Einstein to acknowledge the results of his math. Then we can measure the brightnesses and rotational velocities of entire galaxies and the measurement of another class of younger, more massive Type Ia Supernovae and by comparing them come up with expansion rates, which confirm the Red Shift numbers.

light does not have a temperature, but is colored by it."

The "color" of light is based on the TEMPERATURE of the black body radiator producing it. Light IS measured by "color temperature".

As to light having a temperature, It can indeed be said to do so. Admittedly only as an approximation. The colour of a light source corresponds to a particular temperature. The higher the temperature, the shorter the average wavelength of the light emitted.

OK, so which bandwagon will you jump to next time? Less filling? Great Taste?

A galaxy will emit light on many wavelengths, but in broad terms there is an average wavelength for its light that corresponds to a temperature. Red shift that galaxy and its apparent temperature drops.

Red shifts are determined by spectral distribution lines of specific elements (e.g. Carbon) NOT shifts in average wavelengths.

Red shift it enough and the apparent temperature drops to 3K. By that point it is (again apparently) radiating mostly microwaves.

Your claiming that distant galaxies have sufficient red shifts that "the apparent temperature drops to 3K". That is absurd.

If the universe goes on a lot further than we can so far detect, there may be an awful lot of extremely distant galaxies with output shifted down into the microwave range. Too weak for individual detection, the combined output would be an undefined blur. You get absorption lines for a single galaxy, but not for a mess of them of differing red shifts. The output may well be indistinguishable from a 3K background radiation.

What you are suggesting is that there is the "detectable" galaxies which are in the visible range of output. Further than there are some massive number of galaxies so far away that all we get is the 3k from them. But we do not see ANY galaxies which would bridge between them. No continuity to the spread of galaxies/ wavelengths. And further that energy (light shifted to 3k) has had time to reach us from these extremely far galaxies which are father away than woudl allow for that energy to ahve reached us in the time the universe has existed.

 

OK, show us how that works.

Ether way, the mechanisms I am suggesting are identical to those for background radiation from the BB.

No it is not. Not even close.

Ether the radiation from then has suffered drastic red shifting, or it has been absorbed and re-radiated, as heat, by dark matter.

Neither of which is what is proposed. So your claim of either or is bogus.

Hm. Fair point. Let me put another way. If what I was trying to say, and what Freethinker thinks I have said differ, I will spend some time trying to sort it out,

So you are going to change froom ignoring it? Let's all hope so.

I have already explained that I did not intend my words to be interpreted as saying their are galaxies older than the universe, but still you harp on about it.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

i think(emphasize THINK) that science can only lead you to God,

Oh PALEEZEE! THINK would require REASON. You have failed to show ANY REASON behind such claims. Only FAITH.

 

When you are capable of providing ANY science based data to support a god claim and overcome the massive amount of data that specifically refute the possible existence of the biblical god, THEN associating THINKING with a god myth might be correct.

whether you choose to accept that that is where it leads you is your choice.

"Choose to accept" would be appropriate. One can "Choose to accept" things which lack acceptance based on REASON or THINKING.

 

Although one could demote "thinking" to even what an ant does. If that is the approach you choose to use.