"Giant Mystery Blob Discovered Near Dawn of Time"

[n8allan]

Giant Mystery Blob Discovered Near Dawn of Time:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... -blob.html

I'm not a physicist, but perhaps this readership can help me try to understand how "discoveries" such "blobs" that are supposedly nearly 13 billion light years away could possible fit the Big Bang theory. If we banged with the rest of the universe, then doesn't this mean that nothing should appear to our view that is even close to the supposed origination time? Bear with me...

Picture starting your stop-watch at the supposed point of Bang. After 13 billion years, the furthest light from the origin would be 13 billion light years away, by definition. The matter, however, would all be much nearer the origin point based on the fraction of the speed of light at which the matter is travelling away from the center. Thus, even if Earth was among the fastest departing objects relative to the origin point, any light reaching us would have to have originated at a much later time than the bang. Another way to put this is that if we were 13 billion years from anything in the universe, then under the Big Bang theory, we shouldn't be able to see it yet.

If for the sake of argument, we are travelling at even as fast as 1/4 the speed of light, away from the point of Bang, then the oldest thing that we could see would be in the neighborhood of 4 billions light years away. The fact is that if we look the opposite direction to the article's "distant blob" we can see other very distant things, so we are clearly not on any kind of Universal "edge", thus there should be a significantly restricted maximum distance that we can see.

The only way I can possible see to rescue the Big Bang from this is to assume that red-shifts are not an accurate measure of distance. But this is one of the base assumptions on which the Big Bang was constructed to begin with. Surely I'm making a logical mistake here somewhere.

I know that most of the readership here subscribes to the idea that indeed red-shift is not a reliable indicator of distance, but for the sake of argument, how would a Big Bang proponent defend the above?

Thanks,

-Nate

[davesmith_au]

Welcome aboard Nate, and you ask an interesting question. However, one error you make is to assume everything moved only in one direction from the '"bang". Let's assume the bang was spherical, and still happened 13 billion years ago, then the total diameter of the light from the resultant spherical universe would be around 26 billion years. But this then leaves us in the dilemma that if we can look in one direction and see something 13 billion years away, and look in the opposite direction and see something 13 billion years away, we must be smack bang in the center of the universe... what are the odds?

I am not in any way trying to support the big bang theory, in fact I find it quite absurd, always have. And you're partly correct, in that redshift is interpreted as recessional velocity, meaning the universe is expanding, hence if we go backwards, it must have started as a point - of nothing... which went BANG! for no apparent reason... how absurd.

One would have thought that there should be a better explanation for redshift. Arp was on the right track, in that redshift is likely intrinsic to the object, and has little to do with velocity. But the level of faith within the church of modern cosmology won't allow them to concede that he may have been right, so any alternative explanations become 'sinful' to explore... and hence those who question the standard model receive a snub or ridicule from the inquisitors of peer-review. How sad.

Big bang proponents defend their failing model by inventing new physics to account for anomolous observations, and labelling dissenters as crackpots. Hardly good science.

Cheers, Dave.

[MGmirkin]

Well, and wasn't part of the big bang spiel (possibly a later addition) that it wasn't so much a "point source" expansion, so much as EVERYTHING was denser and EVERYTHING expanded away from EVERYTHING ELSE in the universe uniformly, as opposed to expanding away from some radial "center" point? IE, everything we see would be receding from us at approximately equal velocities. Every point would be receding from every other point.

It's a bit much to wrap the puny human brain around. That's why they still employ mathemagicians who can allay our fears and tell us that THEY understand what it all means and WE don't have to...

~Michael

[n8allan]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the welcome, believe me I am honored to be a part of the community doing this exciting and important work.

However, one error you make is to assume everything moved only in one direction from the '"bang". Let's assume the bang was spherical, and still happened 13 billion years ago, then the total diameter of the light from the resultant spherical universe would be around 26 billion years.

I do recognize this, and it is a part of my poorly articulated point. Allow me to try another explanation, using points along the Big Bang timeline:

• 0 years - "We" (what will become our matter) are bunched up together with the rest of the universe
• 7bil years - If we haven't travelled far from the center, then the fastest ejected matter is now less than ~7bil LY from us. We will not see light emitted from said matter, however, for another (less than) ~7bil years at which time the same matter will be that much further away. If we have travelled far from the Bang, then the furthest matter will be on the "other side" of the bang, at most less than ~14bil LY away, but again, we will not see light emissions from said objects for as much as 14bil years. Note that the belief in accelerating expansion would make these distances even less.
• 13.7bil years (now) - If we are still relatively close to the center of expansion, the furthest, fastest objects are now less than ~13bil LY away, but we will not see the present emissions from these for another ~13bil years. If we have travelled far from from the Bang, the furthest matter is less than 26bil LY away, however, the furthest light we could possibly see would still be less than 13bil LY away. What was there to see 13bil years ago though? Just the thing that banged!

The bottom line: If we are 13bil LY away from something, as is claimed in the germane article, then what was that thing doing 13bil LY away from where we are now, 13bil years ago?!

But this then leaves us in the dilemma that if we can look in one direction and see something 13 billion years away, and look in the opposite direction and see something 13 billion years away, we must be smack bang in the center of the universe... what are the odds?

True, and even if we were at the center, again, there shouldn't be something 13bil LY away 13bil years ago!

I am not in any way trying to support the big bang theory, in fact I find it quite absurd, always have. And you're partly correct, in that redshift is interpreted as recessional velocity, meaning the universe is expanding, hence if we go backwards, it must have started as a point - of nothing... which went BANG! for no apparent reason... how absurd.

I too have issues with it from many angles. It seems to be supported as though it is important philosophically; as though it gives some kind of added insight or meaning to the universe. It's like observing a car travelling along a road and saying, aha, I've computed that the car used to be back there. As though, even if true, the announcement gives any real insight or meaning to the big picture. The interesting questions remain unanswered, such as why the car was back there, how did it get there, where is it going, who is riding in it, and who is driving. Philosophy aside, however, I am interested in understanding if the Big Bang has any tenable legs to rest on logically. Right now I'm not impressed.

One would have thought that there should be a better explanation for redshift. Arp was on the right track, in that redshift is likely intrinsic to the object, and has little to do with velocity. But the level of faith within the church of modern cosmology won't allow them to concede that he may have been right, so any alternative explanations become 'sinful' to explore... and hence those who question the standard model receive a snub or ridicule from the inquisitors of peer-review. How sad.

Yes, you may be right. I've been scouring my notes lately trying to find a link to a fairly recent finding. The astronomers in question were scratching their proverbial heads about some nearby stars that, according to their blue-shift, appeared to be heading towards the earth. They rightfully recognized this as being a red flag and thus pointed some new instruments, which are supposedly able to decipher movement with high accurately. They found that indeed the stars were travelling in their expected manner through the Galaxy and concluded that the blue-shift must be due to some "intrinsic" factor. This was from a main-stream publication and I badly wish I could find it. Anyone know of it?

It only takes one such contrary observation to falsify a theory. Of course... it is possible to then create another theory, which looks like the old one but with an exception written in.

Best,

-Nate

[n8allan]

Well, and wasn't part of the big bang spiel (possibly a later addition) that it wasn't so much a "point source" expansion, so much as EVERYTHING was denser and EVERYTHING expanded away from EVERYTHING ELSE in the universe uniformly, as opposed to expanding away from some radial "center" point? IE, everything we see would be receding from us at approximately equal velocities. Every point would be receding from every other point.

Ah yes, I've seen this discussed. Even if the expansion were somehow uniform due to matter being some kind of tear in the space/time fabric, the implication is nonetheless that 13.73 years ago matter was close together. Thus, if we are observing light from objects that supposedly took 13 bil years to reach us, how could those objects at that time be 13bil LY away from our present position?

It's a bit much to wrap the puny human brain around. That's why they still employ mathemagicians who can allay our fears and tell us that THEY understand what it all means and WE don't have to...

By simply adding another dimension right? "Maybe the problem is that we need half dimensions! 11.5 dimensions should just about make this equation work." I suppose I shouldn't make fun of people's theories, but they should make it so dang easy to.

Best,

-Nate

[solrey]

My impression is that they've painted themselves into a corner with the CMBR corresponding to the age of the universe. SInce we've measured the CMBR, thus determining the 'exact' age of the universe , discoveries such as this seem to handcuff them into coming up with any explanation that does NOT include increasing the age of the universe. If they did that, then the predicted/calculated CMBR would be different from what is actually measured.
Personally, I think CMBR is just local background emissions from our own galaxy. But don't tell the 'bangers' that, it's a good laugh to see them scrape the bottom for any explanation that doesn't bust the age/CMBR paradigm.

[Mallas]

Hiyas,

I am with you n8. You brought up exactly the point I did on the New Insights and Mad Ideas forum where this was posted by another member.

Saying "Big Bang" and then saying "Light is just arriving" In the same article makes absolutely no sense to me no matter how you look at it, even if you are only just looking at it.

I do not see how intelligent people can swallow this trash.

[Tzunamii]

If the furthest edge of the universe is 13 bill ly away, what exists at 14 bill ly away?
If the universe is indeed finite, perhaps there is a plasma sheath separating this "universe" from an even larger electrical system.
Some currently untestable assumptions in there of course, but still an interesting musing.

[n8allan]

If the furthest edge of the universe is 13 bill ly away, what exists at 14 bill ly away?

I asked this kind of question to an astronomer years ago and with a straight face he suggested that the universe may be curved and wrap around.

If the universe is indeed finite, perhaps there is a plasma sheath separating this "universe" from an even larger electrical system.
Some currently untestable assumptions in there of course, but still an interesting musing.

LOL, of course in a plasma universe, there is no need for a limit to begin with. Many scientist don't seem to like the idea of an infinite universe, yet in my interpretation we've never seen evidence to the contrary. It was an amazing moment when they pointed the Hubble deep field at a seemly empty point in the sky and observed thousands of galaxies.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... large_web/

[robertcircle1]

Hi everyone,

I'm new here. Not sure what it's all about yet but I found this discussion so I'll add my bit, if that's okay.
***
If there was a big bang I can understand that in simple terms. I'm no mathmatician. There are some problems with the big bang and all that, like dark matter and accelerating outer galaxies. The simple explanation seems to be that our universe is surrounded by other similar universes. The gravity of the others is pulling our galaxies faster and faster away from the centre, and our gravity is pulling their galaxies faster and faster this way. If we start to see galaxies with blue shifts that would indicate that they came into view maybe 13 billion years ago and are now much closer to us. It might even be that at 12 points around our universe 12 big bangs have already happened and swallowed up much of the matter in our universe and twelve others around us (and the same in all the universes beyond, of which there might be a great but finite number, or even an infinite number).
***
If a big bang is the result of a big crunch caused by a twelveth part of twelve universes colliding, to give about the same mass, that would make sense. It would still need a driver. I can only guess at this. If galaxies colliding cause increasing mass and gravity then the blob would get smaller as more galaxies fell into it. And it would get hotter too. When enough matter and energy fell into this giant black hole it might reach a temperature that breaks down all bonds and particles so that it is then a tiny point of pure energy and can sustain gravity no more. With most of the universe now the size of a pin head and pressure in the region of trillions of tons per square milimeter, it would explode with such rapidity that the quantas or whatever of energy would be shooting in every direction, condensing as it went but going so fast that as gravity and mass returned, though gravity would try to pull it all together again, mass inertia would keep it going.
***

Also, there would still be galaxies falling in towards the centres. They would interact with the stuff coming out and cause various effects, like spin.

Bob
***

[MGmirkin]

How do you define a universe? Is the universe infinite? Does it stretch on forever? If so, how can there be other universes beyond our since our universe is infinite and has no bound? If the universe is finite and has a beginning and end, what is beyond the universe? Can anything cross the barrier or "end" of the universe? If not, how could "other universes" encroach upon ours?

I always wonder a bit when people speak in terms of "other universes." IT seems like either they're part of our reality or they're not. If they're part of the infinite expanse of our reality, how can they be OTHER universes? Wouldn't they simply be other regions of OUR universe?

~Michael Gmirkin

[Lloyd]

Hi Bob.
* Glad to see you got in here. I was waiting for you to post your circle city idea in the New Insights section. I thought some of our members might enjoy discussing that there.
* I didn't tell you to begin with that this forum is primarily about the theory that electrical forces dominate the universe. When you get time, you might find the TPOD articles with pictures interesting.
* But to begin with it'll be interesting to see if you have more ideas to discuss about your circle cities.

[robertcircle1]

How do you define a universe? Is the universe infinite? Does it stretch on forever? If so, how can there be other universes beyond our since our universe is infinite and has no bound? If the universe is finite and has a beginning and end, what is beyond the universe? Can anything cross the barrier or "end" of the universe? If not, how could "other universes" encroach upon ours?

I always wonder a bit when people speak in terms of "other universes." IT seems like either they're part of our reality or they're not. If they're part of the infinite expanse of our reality, how can they be OTHER universes? Wouldn't they simply be other regions of OUR universe?

~Michael Gmirkin

Hi Michael,

Yes, in reality, other parts of the universe. I should have referred to the universe as the known universe, the only part we can see. We have a name for galaxies and we can see there are many of them. If we could see further we might see lots of so called universes. We could call them universal regions or poly-galaxies or something. We'll never know what is beyond our universe unless we find a way of communicating with others who have been there or are still there.
***

If they are still there then we cannot with current technology contact them, but if they come here then we might be able to. There is a way this can happen. As universes (by whatever name) colide and everything natural is sucked in and spat out again, the only thing that could survive that is something intentionally put in a super orbit that would keep it out of danger until the new universe(s) mature after billions of years. There might be one or more of these memory pods heading our way right now or even in orbit just waiting for us to think about it, then look for it and bag it. Then study it. It would need to be very solidly built to withstand billions of years in space with universes coming and going.
***
Could we build something of the kind? I don't know. I expect we could work out the speed it would need to orbit at to keep it from being pulled into the big crunch. Pretty fast I would think. And if it hit anything at that speed would it survive? Maybe not. So if you were going to send one such thing into orbit you'd better send hundreds or millions. And could life be frozen then revived after billions of years? Maybe. A better bet might be the basic chemicals and a machine that assembles them into a creature at the end of its journey and programmes its memory so it thinks it has just woke from a short nap.

I have to go out.

Cheers,

Bob
***

[davesmith_au]

Bob.

Your speculations should be shared on the New Insights and Mad Ideas board, NOT the Electric Universe board. Not only are they a derailment of the topic of this thread, they in no way constitute discussion of Electric Universe theory. Please familiarise yourself with the rules and guidelines of our forum before posting again.

Dave Smith,
Forum Administrator.