• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

This big bang "inflation" think is complete NONSENSE

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
SaltyNuts said:
Dullard, I very much appreciate your attempt to contribute to this important subject. However, I think you've just help demonstrate my point. Scientists routinely say that light from xxx light years away took those same number of calendar years to arrive. However, that make NO SENSE given what you just stated, given current assumptions. The universe (supposedly) is expanding. So light, let's say, that was emitted 13 billion years ago would have to not only travel the 13 billion light years, BUT COVER THE EXPANSION FROM BOTH THE LIGHT EMITTING OBJECT AND THE RECIPIENT (us). Therefore, any light we see would have to be from a location much closer.
Click to expand...

This is largely correct, in that the light between a star emitting light and the earth where we receive it must travel across the distance between the star and earth at the time that the light was emitted plus the additional distance added by the expansion of space between the star and the earth while the light is in transit. As you suggest, this does mean that the light's travel time in years is greater than the distance in light-years was between the star and the earth when the light was emitted. The travel time reflects the distance now between the star and the earth, which is greater than it was then because of the expansion of the universe. (Edit: I see Dullard beat me to this.)

SaltyNuts said:
Let's take it a step further. Let's just take the assumption that light from 13 billion light years was sent to us 13 billion calendar years ago. We'll go with that.

What that would mean is that the universe ALMOST INSTANTLY inflated to its current size. It inflated almost instantly (within a few hundred thousand years), and we are just now getting the light sent after it inflated. But that is NOT what the inflationary principle holds. It holds that the universe inflated from something the size of an atom (rough guess) to the size of a marble (again, rough guess on the part of the theory) in some minuscule part of a second. What's more, keep in mind, the universe is supposed to be expanding at an ACCELERATING RATE since then. I think (hope) you can see the point.
Click to expand...

You seem to be equating inflation and expansion. As you say, inflation is hypothesized to be a very rapid expansion of space that occurred because of specific conditions present in the very early universe for just a small fraction of a second. This inflation did very rapidly expand the size of the universe to something approaching the "ball park" size of our current universe in roughly 10^-32 seconds. The non-inflationary expansion of the universe continued on at a much, much slower rate. This rate of expansion has changed over the lifetime of the universe, first slowing because of gravitational attraction and (very surprising) then speeding up (hypothetically due to "dark energy"). Bear in mind that these expansion rates are tied to "per unit" space, so that the measured expansion between two objects is proportional to the space between them. Even a small expansion rate can produce huge separation rates between objects that are already quite distant (even greater than the speed of light). Here is one example of a universe history chart which you might find helpful:

1164px-History_of_the_Universe.svg.png


SaltyNuts said:
Its all a lot of BS.
Click to expand...

Frankly, you need to ask yourself why you have such a high regard for your own intellectual insights. Do you really think that the time you've spent googling cosmology puts you in a position to call the best current theories "BS"? As I suggested earlier, the much more likely possibility is that you haven't fully understood the theories and the supporting evidence behind them.
 
dullard said:
You still don't understand my point. To make it easy, lets assume we are talking about a light source that is travelling directly away from the earth. Also, to make it easy, lets talk 13 million years, rather than 13 billion years since the Earth probably didn't exist 13 billion years ago. Also lets just assume that the Earth and that light source both travel 6.44e-5 light years per year (the estimated speed of the sun as it travels) although at different directions.

Thus, in the 13 million years that the light traveled from that light source, the Earth traveled about 837 light years (6.44e-5 light years/yr * 1.3e7 yr = 837 light years). The light source also traveled about 837 light years in the opposite direction under these assumed speeds. Thus, for us to see light from that source that traveled 13 million light years, it would have left that light source when that light source was 13,000,000 - 837*2 = 12.998326 million light years apart.

So, yes you are correct that the light that traveled 13 million years was emitted from a source that was closer (12.99826 million light years away in these assumptions). However, the point that you fail to see is that in the original post you said that since 12.99826 is smaller than 13 it proves that we aren't expanding. That is not true. It instead proves that scientists round 12.99826 to 13. The math is the same if we talk billion instead of million, it is still 12.99826 being rounded to 13.

And that is assuming the light source is travelling directly in the opposite direction. If many things explode and expand, then some things will be expanding in nearly a parallel direction. Such as the sun and the Earth are both traveling through space at about the same speed. For nearly parallel moving items, the 12.99826 would be even far closer to 13. Again, that is why they round to 13.
Click to expand...


Dullard, you realize that all you have done is make the distance small enough so that it BECOMES a rounding error? According to the theory, we can see back almost to the big bang. Just a few hundred thousand years after it. When scientists say we see light from 13 billion light years away as it was emitted 13 billion years ago, that ain't no rounding error. Its just plain WRONG in an expanding universe, much less an accelerating expanding universe!

Repeat after me: If there is any *material* expansion of the universe, light arriving at earth today from any number of light years away must come from a source *materially* closer than that number of light years.

P.S. See the rubber strip analogy DigDog presented above and that I correctly broke down.

P.P.S. it would matter if the earth was around 13 billion years ago for light arriving today on earth.
 
PowerEngineer said:
This is largely correct, in that the light between a star emitting light and the earth where we receive it must travel across the distance between the star and earth at the time that the light was emitted plus the additional distance added by the expansion of space between the star and the earth while the light is in transit. As you suggest, this does mean that the light's travel time in years is greater than the distance in light-years was between the star and the earth when the light was emitted. The travel time reflects the distance now between the star and the earth, which is greater than it was then because of the expansion of the universe. (Edit: I see Dullard beat me to this.)



You seem to be equating inflation and expansion. As you say, inflation is hypothesized to be a very rapid expansion of space that occurred because of specific conditions present in the very early universe for just a small fraction of a second. This inflation did very rapidly expand the size of the universe to something approaching the "ball park" size of our current universe in roughly 10^-32 seconds. The non-inflationary expansion of the universe continued on at a much, much slower rate. This rate of expansion has changed over the lifetime of the universe, first slowing because of gravitational attraction and (very surprising) then speeding up (hypothetically due to "dark energy"). Bear in mind that these expansion rates are tied to "per unit" space, so that the measured expansion between two objects is proportional to the space between them. Even a small expansion rate can produce huge separation rates between objects that are already quite distant (even greater than the speed of light). Here is one example of a universe history chart which you might find helpful:

1164px-History_of_the_Universe.svg.png




Frankly, you need to ask yourself why you have such a high regard for your own intellectual insights. Do you really think that the time you've spent googling cosmology puts you in a position to call the best current theories "BS"? As I suggested earlier, the much more likely possibility is that you haven't fully understood the theories and the supporting evidence behind them.
Click to expand...



Thanks, but I'm not sure any of that deals directly with the issue.
 
cbrunny said:
How?
Click to expand...


For REAL?!?! The earth wasn't around 13 billion years ago. A star 13 billion years ago emits a light particle. It gets to the earth *today*. According to the theory, of course, which I've shown is complete B.S. - in truth such light particle would get to earth sometime AFTER today.
 
SaltyNuts said:
Hey man, when you lack the intellect to make a valuable contribution to the thread, I guess you have to do something to feel relevant. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I have the intellect, but I think it's a better use of my time to hurl invectives at herpy derpies like you.
 
dullard said:
Try it. Show us the math. It is a rounding error because the expansion is quite slow.
Click to expand...


Okie dokie! Speed of light 186,000 miles per second.

Per this sight:

http://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html

Expansion of the universe is roughly 46 miles per second per roughly 3 million light years.

Visable universe is roughly 13 billion light years across.

3 million goes into 13 billion (if I got my zeroes right) roughly 4,333 times.

46 miles per second multiplied by the 4,333 equals roughly 200,000. Thus space is expanding (if you believe it) at roughly 200,000 miles a second. This compared to the speed of light being 186,000 miles per second.

Now, obviously this can't be the case, since light is still hitting us from galaxies 13 billion light years away - it is clearly off. But, what is also clear, is that the expansion of space in the theory is very, VERY material.

And it HAS to be very, very material in the theory because it HAS TO HAVE EXPANDED FAST ENOUGH SO THAT LIGHT THAT WAS EMITTED 13 BILLION YEARS AGO IS ONLY FREAKING GETTING TO US *TODAY*! How could you possibly think this expansion is trivial in the theory?!?!
 
Last edited:
SaltyNuts said:
For REAL?!?! The earth wasn't around 13 billion years ago. A star 13 billion years ago emits a light particle. It gets to the earth *today*. According to the theory, of course, which I've shown is complete B.S. - in truth such light particle would get to earth sometime AFTER today.
Click to expand...
that's not what you said.

You said this:
it would matter if the earth was around 13 billion years ago for light arriving today on earth.
Click to expand...

Which I am understanding to mean that you think the earth would need to have existed 13 billion years ago in order for it to receive today light that was emitted 13 billion years ago.
 
SaltyNuts said:
Okie dokie! Speed of light 186,000 miles per second.

Per this sight:

http://www.space.com/17884-universe-expansion-speed-hubble-constant.html

Expansion of the universe is roughly 46 miles per second per roughly 3 million light years.

Visable universe is roughly 13 billion light years across.

3 million goes into 13 billion (if I got my zeroes right) roughly 4,333 times.

46 miles per second multiplied by the 4,333 equals roughly 200,000. Thus space is expanding (if you believe it) at roughly 200,000 miles a second. This compared to the speed of light being 186,000 miles per second.

Now, obviously this can't be the case, since light is still hitting us from galaxies 13 billion light years away - it is clearly off. But, what is also clear, is that the expansion of space in the theory is very, VERY material.

And it HAS to be very, very material in the theory because it HAS TO HAVE EXPANDED FAST ENOUGH SO THAT LIGHT THAT WAS EMITTED 13 BILLION YEARS AGO IS ONLY FREAKING GETTING TO US *TODAY*! How could you possibly think this expansion is trivial in the theory?!?!
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're arguing that if the universe were a pure 2D circle that had a diameter of 13 billion light years the circumference would expand at a rate of 200,000 miles per second.

That doesn't seem like it would be in any way relevant. Even if the contents of the 2D circle were uniformly stretched at a rate of 200,000 miles per second rather than the circle just expanding, the contents of the circle would expand at lower rates (the rate being the sum of parts).
 
cbrunny said:
Sounds like you're arguing that if the universe were a pure 2D circle that had a diameter of 13 billion light years the circumference would expand at a rate of 200,000 miles per second.

That doesn't seem like it would be in any way relevant. Even if the contents of the 2D circle were uniformly stretched at a rate of 200,000 miles per second rather than the circle just expanding, the contents of the circle would expand at lower rates (the rate being the sum of parts).
Click to expand...

Nevermind the fact it wasn't uniform, therefore you can't use simple division to determine how long photons have been in transit and how far they've traveled.
 
Well, in fairness cbrunny, I acknowledged that the calculation is *clearly* incorrect. Happy to let you do what you think is the correct math!

Your first point is well taken. I was thinking that the 46 miles per second per 3 million miles was based on a 2-d model. It could have very well been based on a 3-d model (and this seems more likely). But it seems to me that would mean the acceleration is even greater. I think it all comes down to exactly how this should be interpreted.

Also, just note that the second point you are making seems invalid to me given that the "contents" of the circle we are talking about are on the edges of the circle when we are talking about measuring light from an object 13 billion light years away.

But, no matter how you slice it, my point is the acceleration is very *material*, not some rounding error. AND IT HAS TO BE VERY MATERIAL IN THE THEORY BECAUSE IT HAS TO HAVE EXPANDED FAST ENOUGH SO THAT LIGHT FROM 13 BILLION YEARS AWAY IS JUST GETTING TO US *TODAY*.
 
I couldn't care less about the accuracy of your calculations. My point is that the way you're thinking about this is wrong from the start, which you have just acknowledged.

What do you think "material" means? How do you define "material"? Is this a scientific designation? Is there a statistical importance to "material"? Is it objective, and if so how is it measured?
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Nevermind the fact it wasn't uniform, therefore you can't use simple division to determine how long photons have been in transit and how far they've traveled.
Click to expand...


Huh? Photons travel at or very, very close to the speed of light in space. If your point is that "well you can't tell how long they've been traveling given that maybe one went through some planet's atmosphere that slowed it down" or something like that, then you've just shut down not only the inflationary big bang theory, but also pretty much all observational estimates to date! When you are looking from photons for a galaxy 13 billion years away, sure, any one of them might have been slowed, but we are getting a *stream* of them, hence scientists can make estimates.
 
It'a almost as though no physicist over the last hundred years could have come to the incredibly insightful conclusion as Salty has here. Therefore Salty should henceforth be acknowledged as the greatest physicist who ever lived.







Do I need to add the /s?
 
SaltyNuts said:
Huh? Photons travel at or very, very close to the speed of light in space. If your point is that "well you can't tell how long they've been traveling given that maybe one went through some planet's atmosphere that slowed it down" or something like that, then you've just shut down not only the inflationary big bang theory, but also pretty much all observational estimates to date! When you are looking from photons for a galaxy 13 billion years away, sure, any one of them might have been slowed, but we are getting a *stream* of them, hence scientists can make estimates.
Click to expand...

The expansion of the universe was not a uniform event. X% of it happened within the first nth of a nanosecond, and the remaining % of it has happened since then. As such, a photon generated by a star forming a million years after the big bang started had a full 13 billion light years to cross before reaching us (depending on origin and destination reference frames).
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

relevant quote

The best estimate (as of 2015) of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years[5] but due to the expansion of space humans are observing objects that were originally much closer but are now considerably farther away (as defined in terms of cosmological proper distance, which is equal to the comoving distance at the present time) than a static 13.8 billion light-years distance.[11] It is estimated that the diameter of the observable universe is about 28.5 gigaparsecs (93 billion light-years, 8.8×1023 kilometres or 5.5×1023 miles),[12] putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46.5 billion light-years away.
Click to expand...
I bolded the most relevant line.
 
Basically Salty, you are confusing the 'time of travel' with the actual current distance, which is greater. This isn't news btw.
 
cbrunny said:
I couldn't care less about the accuracy of your calculations. My point is that the way you're thinking about this is wrong from the start, which you have just acknowledged.

What do you think "material" means? How do you define "material"? Is this a scientific designation? Is there a statistical importance to "material"? Is it objective, and if so how is it measured?
Click to expand...


Huh? I'm most certainly not thinking about it wrong, and I've not acknowledged anything of the sort. Have you gone cray cray?

"material" is the opposite of "immaterial". I'm using it in the, you know, plain English usage manner LOL. Dullard thought the expansion of space was simply so small that saying light from 13 billion years away was emitted 13 billion years ago is more or less accurate because the expansion is so slow that it is just a *rounding error*. Hence, I'm saying that, in the theory, the expansion is clearly *material*. i.e. not a rounding error, not "immaterial", i.e. a rounding error. Seriously. C'mon man, quite trying to pretend to be smart by asking what you think are smart-sounding questions. Quit being so dense.
 
SaltyNuts said:
Huh? I'm most certainly not thinking about it wrong, and I've not acknowledged anything of the sort. Have you gone cray cray?

"material" is the opposite of "immaterial". I'm using it in the, you know, plain English usage manner LOL. Dullard thought the expansion of space was simply so small that saying light from 13 billion years away was emitted 13 billion years ago is more or less accurate because the expansion is so slow that it is just a *rounding error*. Hence, I'm saying that, in the theory, the expansion is clearly *material*. i.e. not a rounding error, not "immaterial", i.e. a rounding error. Seriously. C'mon man, quite trying to pretend to be smart by asking what you think are smart-sounding questions. Quit being so dense.
Click to expand...
That's not an answer to my question.
 
Regarding notion of distance being used here -

The age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years. While it is commonly understood that nothing can accelerate to velocities equal to or greater than that of light, it is a common misconception that the radius of the observable universe must therefore amount to only 13.8 billion light-years. This reasoning would only make sense if the flat, static Minkowski spacetime conception under special relativity were correct. In the real universe, spacetime is curved in a way that corresponds to the expansion of space, as evidenced by Hubble's law. Distances obtained as the speed of light multiplied by a cosmological time interval have no direct physical significance.[36]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top