How big is the universe?

[StevenJay]

I've long felt that the reason the concept of infinity is so difficult to grasp is because virtually everything in our direct physical experience is defined by parameters and limitations. We simply have no reference point for infinity. On the other hand, the very fact that we are able to conceive the concept of infinity in the first place is very telling as to our true nature, IMO!

[redeye]

I kinda feel that believing the universe to be finite is similar to believing the Earth is flat. It seems arrogant to be believe the Universe is limited to our perception of it. How can gravitational fields extend out to infinity in a finite Universe?

Cheers!

[Harry Costas]

G'day

When we observe deep field images 13.2 Gyrs away we notice all forms of galaxies in various phases, evolution forms from spiral to eliptical to whatever. Beacuse of the enormous numbers that we can see the probability of observing new types increases. We do not see the birth of the universe.

How can we see the birth when we can see more galaxies (over 300 billion) in deep field images than we see in the local galaxies.

Over the last 80 years we have been brain washed in thinking along BBT and some form of origin, a start of everything and its funny that everything is expanding away from planet Earth, a dot dust in our MW.

[redeye]

Over the last 80 years we have been brain washed in thinking along BBT and some form of origin, a start of everything and its funny that everything is expanding away from planet Earth, a dot dust in our MW.
G'day

I don't see our position, embedded in the heliosphere of the Sun, as being a very good vantage point. Deducing the expansion of the Universe from Hubble's red shift observations is an idea, might even be a good one, but it is no reason to draw a line under the whole thing and reject any other conclusions or observations if they are contradictory. The treatment of Arp is simply inexcuseable, even scientists like Hoyle seem to be getting a kicking in the mainsteam media. The problem is that there is so much hubris heaped on top of accepted mainsteam ideas that it becomes impossible to change the initial assumption without throwing out years of complimentary work. The people responsible for the work are the peers doing the reviewing and are therefore never gonna accept any change, so the zombie science remains in place and even more hubris is piled on top. Accretion theory, cometary theory, plate tectonics, AGW...etc. All zombie science. Undead theories that simply will not die despite the data which shows they are simply incorrect!

I listen to people such as Dawkins who pretend that they are pillars of reason fighting the irrational religeous right when in fact they have built their houses on sand. It is a depressing state of affairs, and I can't see how this is likely to change. Thank heavens for this site!

Cheers!

[Harry Costas]

G'day redeye

I think you read my post out of context, because I agree with what you say.

In addition science stands alone. It is a mistake to flow with main stream without regards to science. Once you allow emotions to rule than science takes second place and thinking becomes entrapped in "I KNOW".

[redeye]

I think you read my post out of context, because I agree with what you say.

In addition science stands alone. It is a mistake to flow with main stream without regards to science. Once you allow emotions to rule than science takes second place and thinking becomes entrapped in "I KNOW".

Wasn't disagreeing with any of the other posts, it's a subject that had been at the front of my mind for the last few weeks and sometimes writing this stuff down helps me get it straight in my head. I value others input greatly.

Cheers!

[Harry Costas]

G'day redeye

I understand

[tayga]

I kinda feel that believing the universe to be finite is similar to believing the Earth is flat. It seems arrogant to be believe the Universe is limited to our perception of it. How can gravitational fields extend out to infinity in a finite Universe?

Cheers!

I agree it would be arrogant, and stupid, to assume that the scope of the Universe is limited to what we can perceive. But that's not the same as believing it to be finite rather than infinite.

It doesn't compare well with believing in a flat Earth either. There's evidence contrary to that.

[jjohnson]

Being sort of pragmatic, the question whether the universe is infinite or finite, i.e., bounded or not bounded, is more a theoretical or metaphysical question for us now, based on the evidence.

There may be mathematical descriptions of some of the workings of real things in the universe which depend on the issue of infinity, such as, is a point mass merely very small, say of order a Planck distance in effective diameter, so that it can have a real density, or are there really "point" masses of no scalable dimension and infinite density? I am affronted by dividing by zero and expecting a real result, personally, but that's because I am hardly a mathematician.

So, for all practical purposes, it's safer to assume that the universe extends out way past whatever our current observational limit happens to be, and let it go at that. I just assume it's infinite, or better, undefined because we don't know, and let it go at that. We want to know, but we can't. The immense scale so dwarfs us and our ability to put either robotic probes or ourselves very far from our Sun means that for an indefinitely long period of time we are going to be isolated right here and have to deal with the universe on that basis i.e., not enough evidence. We might as well conduct research and sharpen our theories on what we can observe and duplicate and ponder, instead of what we can't. I'm not sure how, even in a mathematical sense, one finds out the truth in whether or not the universe is finite or infinite.

If one believes in the Big Bang theory (this one does not) you could say that the universe started out as tiny, with a dimensional size equivalent to a hazel nut, say, and expanded very quickly at first and then has kept expanding and is currently (according to the conventional 'wisdom') at an accelerating pace, you might say that it was limited (i.e., less than infinite) in size to begin with so no matter how long it keeps expanding, it will always have a finite size.

If it is finite, but expanding faster than we can propel ourselves so as to approach or come up against the 'limit' or the 'edge' or see 'the end beyond which thar be dragons', we will never get there, and so, again, for all practical purposes it is infinite and getting more so. My take is simpler - time and distance both are of indefinite duration and extent, respectively. Proceed as if that is true, but don't be surprised if you come to the end of the road suddenly, or time stops and everything winks out. You won't know the difference either way.

[Harry Costas]

G'day JJ

The BBT does not state that the actual distances are expanding. It states that space/time is expanding. Regardless by observations objects in space cluster. Our solar systems is gravity bound, smilar to our MW and saterlites, similar to the local group of galaxies, similar to the cluster of local groups of galaxies and the super cluter that they form.

So what is the evidnece that the UNiverse is expanding. Its based on redshift data that is not understood because of the intrinsic properties of compact matter found out there, is still being researched and that makes the evidence in question.

[FS3]

As revealed in an interview with the Canadian post-doc-scientist Sherry Suyu from an international team, the age of the Universe is thought "to be 13.75 billion years old, within 170 million years", finally...

How do they know?

Easy to explain!

As usual, the age and size of the Universe are measured by astronomical "Large Lenses Measurements" -- in other words, "graviational lensing" -- along with the necessary amount by lots of "Daaaaarth Maaaatter".

Oops, they did it again!


(Pic of the ejecte..., pardon - "lensed" QSLs from http://home.slac.stanford.edu/pressrele ... 100301.htm )

In this latest case of astronomical misleading we have the "lense", provided by the "foreground" galaxy B1608+656, with a z=0.6304 and four Quasars - oops - no QSLs! - sorry - these are "reflections" of something faaaaar behind the foreground-galaxy -- as their redshift (z=1.394) is different.

So take a belief, and make sure the "light is diverted on different routes", to give the impression that there could be some "lense" causing this all -- and make sure that nobody gets to know that the lense itself was postulated before the observation.

Simple.

Stupid?

You bet!

FS3

[jjohnson]

What is particularly hard to fathom is how the bending of light by a gravitating galaxy in front of the 'distant' quasar (along the line of sight between us and the quasar)can result in an image which is in front of the lensing galaxy! Try the same experiment optically (an opaque central disc with the refracting medium surrounding it) and the eye will not see an image superimposed in front of the opaque part. You'd need an effectively concave (dispersing) medium between the opaque galaxy and the observers to redirect the image along the line of sight to do that, and gravity makes a poor dispersing lens.

If you are in the imaging business it pays to understand how electromagnetic imaging actually works, with gravity as well as glass.

In theory the gravity field around a galaxy could bend light of a bright object well behind it, but it seems that the shape of such a lens is ill-disposed to form a very good image unless it were precisely symmetrical and had a useful "shape" at bringing the rays of light to a focus at our distance and direction. The famous "Einstein Cross" is touted as a perfect example, but Arp's book, Seeing Red (Chapter 7, Lenses) effectively counters the theorists' assumptions and arguments, and shows that in many if not most cases the alleged high-redshift quasar behind the low-redshift lensing mass actually has detectable luminous connections with the lensing galaxy, and in other cases is visible in front of an optically opaque area of the galaxy. Even the "gravitationally lensed arcs" are shown to have other plausible explanations besides gravitational lensing.

Further, a great deal of theory, regarding distance and therefore light-time in transit and therefore "age", rests on universe expansion, Doppler redshift and Hubble's constant (about which that individual maintained doubts throughout his practice) and shuns the idea that there might be intrinsic redshift present in quasars which can accompany Doppler red shift. In Arp's explanation, intrinsic redshift is neither an artifact of relative velocity nor of age (other than it changes to less redshift as time passes for the high-z object).

We need to be careful in considering ideas which have more than one plausible explanation and upon which a great deal of other explanation rests. Don't build castles upon sand, and know how to identify sand when you see it.

[FS3]

Onby a link from a 1999 on that very case of B1608+656 explaining the methodism of that "Gravy Lense":


Gravitational Lenses and Cosmology
Steven T. Myers (University of Pennsylvania)
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4236/suppl/DC1

FS3

[jjohnson]

Good link, FS3. I'll take some time to study this. I wish that those in the mainstream would take time to read Arp and study his refutations of causes and effects, as well.

[Harry Costas]

G'day

Just a quick question.

How can you age an object when it undergoes a recycling process or phase changes?

Same thing with Galaxies, where do you draw the line in the evolution?