Time : Expansion of The Universe

Is this my name?

I have been wondering; is time supposed to have always existed or begin when the universe began with "The Big Bang"?

if time has been going forever, then wouldnt the universe have to be in a repeating cycle? Nothing could ever possibly permanently change if time has been forever because for something to change, it has to have a starting state. if time went forever, there was no starting. As for specifically before the beginning of The Big Bang; it has to have been changing in some way over time (if it existed) to be triggered. something has to trigger something else in order for it to change (or else the energy came from nothing). if it was for example building up energy in some way until it exploded, then it was changing from the state it was before. it could not have been changing in a certain way forever then start changing in a different way.
But, i don't think I'm assuming too much when i say the universe can not be in a repeating cycle when it is expanding in all direction (at an accelerating rate, correct?).

RebelButtMunch

Is this my name? wrote: »

I have been wondering; is time supposed to have always existed or begin when the universe began with "The Big Bang"?

if time has been going forever, then wouldnt the universe have to be in a repeating cycle? Nothing could ever possibly permanently change if time has been forever because for something to change, it has to have a starting state. if time went forever, there was no starting. As for specifically before the beginning of The Big Bang; it has to have been changing in some way over time (if it existed) to be triggered. something has to trigger something else in order for it to change (or else the energy came from nothing). if it was for example building up energy in some way until it exploded, then it was changing from the state it was before. it could not have been changing in a certain way forever then start changing in a different way.
But, i don't think I'm assuming too much when i say the universe can not be in a repeating cycle when it is expanding in all direction (at an accelerating rate, correct?).

I believe current sentiment is that space-time was created at the big bang.

Is this my name?

I am very curious/interested in this sort of stuff, but dont know much (didnt even have an astronomy class in high school).

some questions I have been wondering:
1. as the universe expands, is the speed its expanding accelerating?

2. since time is supposed to go slower for an object moving at light speed, is it simply the faster an object moves (or the more distance) the slower time goes for it?

3. is that the cause of the universe accelerating its expansion? perhaps a looping effect of; the more distance everything moves outwards - the less time goes by for it - the more it speeds up - and the more distance it travels - so on...

4. if so is there a maximum speed?

5. is our entire galaxy moving together at a fast rate outwards as the universe expands? if so, why does an object keep moving with the galaxy if it is within the galaxy but in empty space with nothing to propel it forward? is it momentum (and the looping effect) and nothing actually ever truly is staying still?

6. if time DOES go slower the faster an object moves and if the galaxy IS expanding rapidly to create its own pace for time within it, then if an object goes in the opposite direction of the expansion at a fast pace would time actually speed up for it since its actually slowing down?

AugustusMinimus

Is this my name.

First you have to understand the shape of the universe. There are many different theories on it's shape. I'll go through one possiblity, that the universe is a 4 dimensional sphere.

You can't possibly imagine a 4 dimensional object. Us humans can only imagine 3 dimensions. However, there are 4 basic spacial dimensions. Height, width, length and time. Most people don't think of time as a spacial dimension. However, it is one. It's just that we don't perceive it as one.

Anyways, our universe could be a 4 dimensional sphere. As you can't imagine a 4 dimensional sphere, let's get rid of one dimensions. Let's get rid of height. In our new universe, everything is flat. We'll have 3 dimensions, length, width and time.

A very basic universe in this sense could be a sheet of paper. Flat people could move around this piece of paper. Let the x axis represent width and y represent length. Time will be the z axis. Time in this universe would be caused by the sheet of paper (the universe) moving up the axis. The sheet of paper (spacial universe) would be moving through time, therefore giving the illusion to the people living on it that time is passing.

However, this is too simplistic. In this case, our universe would have 4 edges. It simply wouldn't make sense. You could literally fall of the edge or hit a brick wall. Hence, let's make all the edges meet each other and create a paper ball.

In this scenario, the flat people could keep moving around the ball without ever reaching an edge. In this case, the time axis would be from the centre of the ball to it's surface. Hence, the radius of this universe would be time itself. This universe (much like our own) would expand by the radius getting bigger. Much like a baloon being blown up.

Pretending it's like a baloon. Put a load of dots on a baloon and blow it up. Note how the dots move away from each other. This is how our universe is expanding. All the galaxies we see are moving away from each other in a similar fashion.

Hence, the universe is expanding along the time axis. We observe this happening as time passing.

AugustusMinimus

Is this my name? wrote: »

1. as the universe expands, is the speed its expanding accelerating?

All galaxies appear to be accelerating away from each other. However, this may just be a natural fact that it's the circumference of the universe which is expanding. It maybe that the actual radius of the universe may be growing at a constant rate. We simply cannot tell as we don't know the circumference of the universe due to the observable universe problem (cosmic horizon)

Is this my name? wrote: »

2. since time is supposed to go slower for an object moving at light speed, is it simply the faster an object moves (or the more distance) the slower time goes for it?

Time is relative. If you were travelling near the speed of light, you wouldn't notice time slowdown for yourself. However, people not travelling near the speed of light would view you as if time was travelling much slower for you.

Is this my name? wrote: »

3. is that the cause of the universe accelerating its expansion? perhaps a looping effect of; the more distance everything moves outwards - the less time goes by for it - the more it speeds up - and the more distance it travels - so on...

No one knows. However, it could come down to simple maths. If the radius of the universe is expanding at a constant rate, then the volume of the universe will be expanding at an accelerating rate. Hence we would see galaxies moving away from each other at an accelerating rate.

Is this my name? wrote: »

4. if so is there a maximum speed?

Matter within the universe is limited to the speed of light. Matter with no mass always travels at the speed of light. Matter with mass always must travelling below the speed of light.

It is unknown if space iteself can expand faster than the speed of light. However, because of the accordian effect, certain galaxies are moving away from each other, faster than the speed of light.

Is this my name? wrote: »

5. is our entire galaxy moving together at a fast rate outwards as the universe expands? if so, why does an object keep moving with the galaxy if it is within the galaxy but in empty space with nothing to propel it forward? is it momentum (and the looping effect) and nothing actually ever truly is staying still?

Have a read of my previous post. The universe is not expanding via length, width or height. It is expanding along the time dimension. Hence, it's like a baloon being blown up with more space being created between galaxies.

Is this my name? wrote: »

6. if time DOES go slower the faster an object moves and if the galaxy IS expanding rapidly to create its own pace for time within it, then if an object goes in the opposite direction of the expansion at a fast pace would time actually speed up for it since its actually slowing down?

In order to move in the direction against expansion of the universe, you will have to travel through time.

Amtmann

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Time is relative. If you were travelling near the speed of light, you wouldn't notice time slowdown for yourself. However, people not travelling near the speed of light would view you as if time was travelling much slower for you.

I've got a question. Light travels at the speed of light; so, when astronomers measure the speed of any given beam of light, do they observe time moving slowly for that beam?

Cú Giobach

Amtmann wrote: »

I've got a question. Light travels at the speed of light; so, when astronomers measure the speed of any given beam of light, do they observe time moving slowly for that beam?

Time is a "product" of change and we can't observe a photon "in flight" but only when it interacts with something, so the concept of measuring or observing time for a photon is not just impossible but meaningless.

If an astronaut travelled at almost the speed of light from the Sun to the Earth (8 mins light travel time) for us he would have crossed the distance in almost 8 mins, but to him, because his "internal" time is slower it would only take a fraction of a second.
Now for a photon travelling the distance at the speed of light that time would be infinitely slowed, so no time at all would pass, therefore to the photon both its emission from the Sun and its absorption by the Earth would happen instantaneously, in other words time and distance do not exist for a photon.

who_ru

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Time is a "product" of change and we can't observe a photon "in flight" but only when it interacts with something, so the concept of measuring or observing time for a photon is not just impossible but meaningless.

If an astronaut travelled at almost the speed of light from the Sun to the Earth (8 mins light travel time) for us he would have crossed the distance in almost 8 mins, but to him, because his "internal" time is slower it would only take a fraction of a second.
Now for a photon travelling the distance at the speed of light that time would be infinitely slowed, so no time at all would pass, therefore to the photon both its emission from the Sun and its absorption by the Earth would happen instantaneously, in other words time and distance do not exist for a photon.

3000 Posts - Well done

Wh1stler

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Time is a "product" of change and we can't observe a photon "in flight" but only when it interacts with something, so the concept of measuring or observing time for a photon is not just impossible but meaningless.

If an astronaut travelled at almost the speed of light from the Sun to the Earth (8 mins light travel time) for us he would have crossed the distance in almost 8 mins, but to him, because his "internal" time is slower it would only take a fraction of a second.
Now for a photon travelling the distance at the speed of light that time would be infinitely slowed, so no time at all would pass, therefore to the photon both its emission from the Sun and its absorption by the Earth would happen instantaneously, in other words time and distance do not exist for a photon.

Does that mean that photons aren't affected by expansion?

Cú Giobach

Wh1stler wrote: »

Does that mean that photons aren't affected by expansion?

Yes, photons aren't affected by anything until they are absorbed.
Light "bending" in a gravitational field is just a photon travelling its straight line through curved space.
Refraction and reflection are photons being absorbed and a new one being emitted.
The red shift we observe due to expansion is only relative to the observer.
Photons are "unchanging and timeless".

Beeker

We know the Universe is expanding through the observation of Galaxies moving away from each other.
However I have often wondered about this. It is often said that the fabric of space is expanding and carrying the Galaxies along with it. How do we know this? Could it not be that it is the galaxies which are moving away from one another through space?
Could space be infinite in size and time?
Could it have always existed and the big bang was just an event that took place within it?

Hoping some of the knowledgeable posters here will help to clear up my misunderstandings.

Myrddin

Beeker wrote: »

It is often said that the fabric of space is expanding and carrying the Galaxies along with it. How do we know this?

Because everything seems to be moving away from everything else, in a nutshell basically.

gkell2

Beeker wrote: »

Could space be infinite in size and time?

Our ancestors had more common sense,unfortunately today people mistake impossible conceptions for intellectual elitism and this is why things like 'big bang' prevail,the honest person assumes the proposer knows what they are saying whereas they really shouldn't.Time and space are limitless and one of the best expressions of this is found in this wonderful passage written in the 19th century -

"As regards that infinity now considered -- the infinity of space -- we often hear it said that "its idea is admitted by the mind -- is acquiesced in -- is entertained -- on account of the greater difficulty which attends the conception of a limit." But this is merely one of those phrases by which even profound thinkers, time out of mind, have occasionally taken pleasure in deceiving themselves. The quibble lies concealed in the word "difficulty." "The mind," we are told, "entertains the idea of limitless, through the greater difficulty which it finds in entertaining that of limited, space." Now, were the proposition but fairly put, its absurdity would become transparent at once. Clearly, there is no mere difficulty in the case. The assertion intended, if presented according to its intention and without sophistry, would run thus: -- "The mind admits the idea of limitless, through the greater impossibility of entertaining that of limited, space."

Amtmann

gkell2 wrote: »

Our ancestors had more common sense

Yes, because believing in changlings and witches and wizards and giants and astrology and goblins and Thor and zephyrs and human sacrifice denotes common sense.

unfortunately today people mistake impossible conceptions for intellectual elitism and this is why things like 'big bang' prevail,

Are you denying the evidence for the Big Bang theory, one of the most successful scientific theories put forth in the past 100 years?

Beeker

EnterNow wrote: »

Because everything seems to be moving away from everything else, in a nutshell basically.

I know that but my question is why do we thing the "fabric of space" is expanding and not the galaxies moving inside a stationary infinite space?

gkell2

Amtmann wrote: »

Are you denying the evidence for the Big Bang theory, one of the most successful scientific theories put forth in the past 100 years?

Big bangers insist that the oldest galaxies are furthest away in a younger/smaller Universe so if they are to be logically consistent then the nearest galaxies are the youngest in an older/larger Universe.I don't even consider 'big bang' in terms of right or wrong,it is just an enormous distraction. There are real challenges out there,anyone going outside and trying to put the changing nightly positions of planets in context of our and their motion around the Sun will tell you that they have their hands full getting accustomed to the orbital plane of planetary motions and how our circuit fits between the circuits of other planets.This is what the human mind was meant to handle if it chooses to take on understanding of the celestial arena.

I see this nonsense of a balloon analogy and honest people really try to make sense of what the 'big bang' proposers are saying as they assume they are trying to explain a hugely complicated picture in simple terms yet it doesn't take much to burst that particular balloon.A balloon is convex on the outside and concave in the inside yet mathematicians imagine the surface of a balloon is a 2D surface enclosing a 3D sphere and then go on to do the same for the galaxies and the structure of the Universe in 4D by blowing up the balloon and then call it 'expanding space'.The poor victim trying to make an honest attempt to understand an impossible concept is hardly aware that if the proposers of 'big bang' had to think through their own proposal they would quickly lose their minds or have already done so.Some poor people cave in rather than just leave the 'big bangers' to their own devices and that is the way people interested in genuine astronomy should leave it.

gkell2

Amtmann wrote: »

Yes, because believing in changlings and witches and wizards and giants and astrology and goblins and Thor and zephyrs and human sacrifice denotes common sense.

When you have encountered so many astronomical systems as I have stretching back to antiquity,actually reading what these people had to say,a person develops a deep affection for the astronomical heritage including ours from over 5000 years ago.I grew up watching Sagan when the original series came out and only now do I see how poorly they framed the older societies understanding of the celestial arena and always tied it to denominational religion,mostly to promote empiricism against what they see as superstition.It doesn't help that denominational Christianity embraces 'big bang' but unfortunately that is the case.

In this harsh and hostile environment it is hard to find people with a more relaxed view and even find room to appreciate how keen observations of terrestrial and celestial phenomena wove their way into the ancient views.People today are truly amazed at the brilliance of Venus and so it was in ancient times where,as the 'morning star' preceded the rising Sun and over the months 'fell' back hence Phosphorous/Lucifer or the brightest star who rose above the parent star and then fell from heaven.The point is that we can appreciate both the ancient observation and its contemporary cause whereas sometimes people understand neither -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg

Another one is that the ancients observed marine creatures in rock strata on mountaintops so they created stories about a great flood,some commentators are better than others at grafting in a meaning why they used the metaphorical cycles of the old replacing the new but again,the understanding of plate tectonics answers the question without overly destroying the original observations -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=c4e81Qa0rQ4C&pg=PA10&dq=inner+reaches+outer+space+methuselah&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VDhqT92_DIeXhQff2tCfCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Universe is mysterious,it is not impossible and there is a difference between the two that many people come to understand with time.

AugustusMinimus

gkell. I have no idea at what you are getting at.

A 4d sphere for the shape of the universe is not that complicated concept at all and believe it or not, is quite simple to model in a computer. It is also a very good explanation of how our universe might work.

AugustusMinimus

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Yes, photons aren't affected by anything until they are absorbed.
Light "bending" in a gravitational field is just a photon travelling its straight line through curved space.
Refraction and reflection are photons being absorbed and a new one being emitted.
The red shift we observe due to expansion is only relative to the observer.
Photons are "unchanging and timeless".

There are quirks though.

If two galaxies are moving away from each other at greater than the speed of light (due to the expansion of the universe) then photons being emitted from one galaxy will never reach the other.

slade_x

Beeker wrote: »

I know that but my question is why do we thing the "fabric of space" is expanding and not the galaxies moving inside a stationary infinite space?

In the simplest way to put it and i know you already know the vast majority of the principle, if not all. But, something is holding the galaxies together (we call it gravity) but the force of gravity we know is not enough to hold the visible galaxy together, there must be some type of "invisible" matter (stuff we dont know and cannot explain) unaccounted for which has come to be called dark matter to hold the galaxy together the way we see it (especially with colliding galaxies). If this really is the case then all galaxies should just collapse to form one unigalaxy if there were no force/affect accelerating them away from each other.

The reason we have so distant galaxies which the distance increases exponentially the way it does is because there is a force driving it. it was thought that the let me say "explosion" (expansion) would eventually slow down and contract back as gravity would take over (this is what was hoped to be confirmed). But so does not seem to be the case as it was observed that distant galaxies are actually accelerating away from other galaxies.

Since matter coalesces the way it does to form lets say these "galaxies" (which we now know some are formed around orbiting supermassive black holes (plural)) there does not seem to be an intrinsic quality inherint in a formed galaxy to want to repel another galaxy away from it (exactly like our local cluster, andromeda and the milky way are not repelling each other at all). so what would cause the more distant galaxies to repel each other.

Nothing is actually causing these galaxies to repel each other because the more distant the galaxies that are much further out from each other get the more this effect is occuring. So the more space /(more of a gap) between the galaxies the greater the effect has been observed. The more space it seems the faster these galaxies accelerate away from each other.

Otherwise you would be left thinking that the more distant two objects become the more effect they have on each other . To use a horrible analogy here. The more distant you seperate siblings the more they influence each other, sorry for the very unsatisfactory analogy given the subject matter, i must apologise.

The reason space is expanding is still unknown and for now just like dark matter a placeholder; dark energy resides. What is this force/energy/property opposing (nay, completely overpowering) gravity with increasing distance/Space? Or is it just a runaway affect of an inflationary period that has just too much potential for gravity to counter as distances exponentially increase outside of its vast influence

Its not how far the galaxies are moving apart. But the increasing of space between these galaxies

Another horrible, more than likely unneccessary affliction on the reader: take the distance from a local building to your home, say 5 miles in line of sight (forget obstacles that would impede a straight walk to it). if you walk at 5 miles per hour you'll get there in an hour. If i move the building thus increasing the distance you have to walk by a factor of 2 at the same velocity it will take you twice the time to get there. Or say the building is still 5 miles away and you increase your velocity to 10 miles per hour. you will reach the destination in half an hour.

Now lets say i mess with your enviroment a little. the building is still 5 miles away from your home and you travel as in the first example at 5 miles per hour, but you no longer have a straight route to the building. lets say i have drawn a line that you can not veer from. this line extends 10 miles in one direction (at a 90degree angle to your line of sight with the building), 5 miles in another (another 90 degree turn in favour of the original line of sight direction from your house) and then another 10 miles in another direction (another 90 degree angle) that will take you to that building (basically walking 3 sides of a 10x5 rectangle to get to your destination 5 hours later, even increasing velocity by a factor of 2 results in a trip of 2 and a half hours, 2 hours longer than initially increasing velocity in the first example). Much less than halfway through i really thought to myself there was very little point in this exercise but i thought i would finish it anyway. Although i cant really liken that example to space expanding between 2 objects i did increase the distance without moving either object. Of which a result of the property of an expanding space between galaxies would force upon you.

The big bang (as the proponents of it call it) and as most think of it as merely an explosion that forced matter outward could have never forced anything out at all. but just expanded the space of an incredibly dense early universe. The matter is still where it once was but just in a different configuration as the process of inflation evolved. The inflationary device that just created space where there was none. The universe is much much much less dense than what it once was but who's to say it has to take up as much room now as when it did back then

The environment of World of Warcraft or Grand Theft Auto IV for example seems big, but definitely a much bigger environment to explore than the little storage device its stored on. World of Warcraft occupies just 5% of the storage space of my little 600GB SSD, How big an environment would be possible if it filled that capacity, How big if one were to keep adding more 2.5" SSDs of the same capacity or just use 4TB 3.5" HDD's. Food for thought? Virtual characteristics to our world....

Moot Point!? yes as without evidence or clues as to the real nature of reality, our universe, and a method to prove its validity a philosophers opinion is just that. Physicists, engineers, scientific apparatus etc. are the end game for that truth.
Time is timeless is merely wordplay. Time merely a word to describe an extraordinally complex observation of essentially a measureable construct born from the way we perceive a quality of reality.

Please excuse the ramblings, its late, and insomnia probably doesnt do the mind any favours

gkell2

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

gkell. I have no idea at what you are getting at.

A 4d sphere for the shape of the universe is not that complicated concept at all and believe it or not, is quite simple to model in a computer. It is also a very good explanation of how our universe might work.

I would say the intelligent observer would get the point fairly quickly,if big bangers insist the oldest galaxies are those furthest away when the Universe was younger/smaller then logical consistency kicks in and determines that the nearest galaxies are the youngest in an older/larger Universe.If you wish to state that the oldest galaxies are not those furthest away then 'big bang' vanishes,it becomes a bad idea it always was and observers are then free to rediscover a very understandable astronomy.

The idea of 4D is extremely unhealthy,not difficult or complicated but nasty in a way people should avoid.Mathematicians who care little for geometry have 2D co-existing with 3D by stating that the surface of a sphere is 2D existing in 3 dimensions and blurring the lines between 2D and 3D is unsightly and unacceptable.I can make a 2D drawing of a chair or a coffee cup but I am not going to sit on it or drink from it and allowing 2 dimensional conceptions to escape into 3 dimensions should horrify people who value their ability to discriminate between a cartoon and a 3D object.I stated in the previous post that the surface of a balloon is convex and concave depending on whether you consider the inside or outside of it,if you insist that 2D can be actually convex and concave then you are bringing trouble on yourself that you do not want.

It is possible to widen the technical and historical perspective to see how we ended up with an unstable 'big bang' narrative and return to a more balanced view of celestial and terrestrial phenomena.If people wish to have their minds saturated with impossible concepts then so be it ,as far as I am concerned the more people become familiar with the actual history of astronomy and what our ancestors really thought,the more 'big bang' fades and becomes nothing more than an indulgence of mathematicians.

Cú Giobach

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

There are quirks though.

If two galaxies are moving away from each other at greater than the speed of light (due to the expansion of the universe) then photons being emitted from one galaxy will never reach the other.

You are thinking relative to your frame of reference, a photon travelling from one of these galaxies and never encountering anything is still not experiencing time or distance, the galaxy it never strikes is not part of its "existence". It's not like the photon can "see" but never reach the receding galaxy, only the actual path travelled by the photon is part of its reality, and still takes no time even if this distance is close to infinity (I'm saying close to infinity because I don't want to try and wrap my head around that one at the moment).
That's why if things keep expanding, far far into the future when almost everything has decayed to nothing, the only things left would be a few stray photons and fundamental particles.

Another way of looking at your quirk is as follows,
If a photon leaves the Sun, and to us, as it leaves it is pointed directly at a particular point on Earth, as it arrives 8 mins later the Earth has moved therefore the photon will strike a different point. Now you might ask "if no time passes for this photon, how can it strike a different point than the one it was initially pointed at?". The thing is to the photon the first point was never "part of its existence" and only appeared to be, from our perspective.

AugustusMinimus

slade_x wrote: »

In the simplest way to put it and i know you already know the vast majority of the principle, if not all. But, something is holding the galaxies together (we call it gravity) but the force of gravity we know is not enough to hold the visible galaxy together, there must be some type of "invisible" matter (stuff we dont know and cannot explain) unaccounted for which has come to be called dark matter to hold the galaxy together the way we see it (especially with colliding galaxies). If this really is the case then all galaxies should just collapse to form one unigalaxy if there were no force/affect accelerating them away from each other.

The reason we have so distant galaxies which the distance increases exponentially the way it does is because there is a force driving it. it was thought that the let me say "explosion" (expansion) would eventually slow down and contract back as gravity would take over (this is what was hoped to be confirmed). But so does not seem to be the case as it was observed that distant galaxies are actually accelerating away from other galaxies.

Since matter coalesces the way it does to form lets say these "galaxies" (which we now know some are formed around orbiting supermassive black holes (plural)) there does not seem to be an intrinsic quality inherint in a formed galaxy to want to repel another galaxy away from it (exactly like our local cluster, andromeda and the milky way are not repelling each other at all). so what would cause the more distant galaxies to repel each other.

Nothing is actually causing these galaxies to repel each other because the more distant the galaxies that are much further out from each other get the more this effect is occuring. So the more space /(more of a gap) between the galaxies the greater the effect has been observed. The more space it seems the faster these galaxies accelerate away from each other.

Otherwise you would be left thinking that the more distant two objects become the more effect they have on each other . To use a horrible analogy here. The more distant you seperate siblings the more they influence each other, sorry for the very unsatisfactory analogy given the subject matter, i must apologise.

The reason space is expanding is still unknown and for now just like dark matter a placeholder; dark energy resides. What is this force/energy/property opposing (nay, completely overpowering) gravity with increasing distance/Space? Or is it just a runaway affect of an inflationary period that has just too much potential for gravity to counter as distances exponentially increase outside of its vast influence

Its not how far the galaxies are moving apart. But the increasing of space between these galaxies

Another horrible, more than likely unneccessary affliction on the reader: take the distance from a local building to your home, say 5 miles in line of sight (forget obstacles that would impede a straight walk to it). if you walk at 5 miles per hour you'll get there in an hour. If i move the building thus increasing the distance you have to walk by a factor of 2 at the same velocity it will take you twice the time to get there. Or say the building is still 5 miles away and you increase your velocity to 10 miles per hour. you will reach the destination in half an hour.

Now lets say i mess with your enviroment a little. the building is still 5 miles away from your home and you travel as in the first example at 5 miles per hour, but you no longer have a straight route to the building. lets say i have drawn a line that you can not veer from. this line extends 10 miles in one direction (at a 90degree angle to your line of sight with the building), 5 miles in another (another 90 degree turn in favour of the original line of sight direction from your house) and then another 10 miles in another direction (another 90 degree angle) that will take you to that building (basically walking 3 sides of a 10x5 rectangle to get to your destination 5 hours later, even increasing velocity by a factor of 2 results in a trip of 2 and a half hours, 2 hours longer than initially increasing velocity in the first example). Much less than halfway through i really thought to myself there was very little point in this exercise but i thought i would finish it anyway. Although i cant really liken that example to space expanding between 2 objects i did increase the distance without moving either object. Of which a result of the property of an expanding space between galaxies would force upon you.

The big bang (as the proponents of it call it) and as most think of it as merely an explosion that forced matter outward could have never forced anything out at all. but just expanded the space of an incredibly dense early universe. The matter is still where it once was but just in a different configuration as the process of inflation evolved. The inflationary device that just created space where there was none. The universe is much much much less dense than what it once was but who's to say it has to take up as much room now as when it did back then

The environment of World of Warcraft or Grand Theft Auto IV for example seems big, but definitely a much bigger environment to explore than the little storage device its stored on. World of Warcraft occupies just 5% of the storage space of my little 600GB SSD, How big an environment would be possible if it filled that capacity, How big if one were to keep adding more 2.5" SSDs of the same capacity or just use 4TB 3.5" HDD's. Food for thought? Virtual characteristics to our world....

Moot Point!? yes as without evidence or clues as to the real nature of reality, our universe, and a method to prove its validity a philosophers opinion is just that. Physicists, engineers, scientific apparatus etc. are the end game for that truth.
Time is timeless is merely wordplay. Time merely a word to describe an extraordinally complex observation of essentially a measureable construct born from the way we perceive a quality of reality.

Please excuse the ramblings, its late, and insomnia probably doesnt do the mind any favours

Simple analogy.

Get a long strip of paper. Fold it back on itself many times so it looks like an accordian.

Put two dots on the paper 5cm from the middle. Put two dots on the paper 10cm from the middle.

If you pull on both ends of the paper to straighten it out, the dots which are 10cm from the middle are moving away from each other at a faster rate than the two dots which are 5cm from the middle.

Cú Giobach

gkell2 wrote: »

I would say the intelligent observer would get the point fairly quickly,if big bangers insist the oldest galaxies are those furthest away when the Universe was younger/smaller then logical consistency kicks in and determines that the nearest galaxies are the youngest in an older/larger Universe.If you wish to state that the oldest galaxies are not those furthest away then 'big bang' vanishes,it becomes a bad idea it always was and observers are then free to rediscover a very understandable astronomy.

The distance to a galaxy does not determine its age, that is determined by when it was formed. Galaxies further away appear younger because we are looking back in time to when most galaxies were forming.

The idea of 4D is extremely unhealthy,not difficult or complicated but nasty in a way people should avoid.Mathematicians who care little for geometry have 2D co-existing with 3D by stating that the surface of a sphere is 2D existing in 3 dimensions and blurring the lines between 2D and 3D is unsightly and unacceptable.I can make a 2D drawing of a chair or a coffee cup but I am not going to sit on it or drink from it and allowing 2 dimensional conceptions to escape into 3 dimensions should horrify people who value their ability to discriminate between a cartoon and a 3D object.

No you can't drink out of a 2D representation of a coffee cup, but if someone has never seen one it can give them a damm good idea of what one looks like. You might have difficulty with simple analogies, but most people don't, and can understand how they break down the more detail you look at.

I stated in the previous post that the surface of a balloon is convex and concave depending on whether you consider the inside or outside of it,if you insist that 2D can be actually convex and concave then you are bringing trouble on yourself that you do not want.

The balloon analogy is to give an idea of a concept, not a definitive description of something.
Most people are bright enough to understand this.

It is possible to widen the technical and historical perspective to see how we ended up with an unstable 'big bang' narrative and return to a more balanced view of celestial and terrestrial phenomena.If people wish to have their minds saturated with impossible concepts then so be it ,as far as I am concerned the more people become familiar with the actual history of astronomy and what our ancestors really thought,the more 'big bang' fades and becomes nothing more than an indulgence of mathematicians.

Ah, now you make your thoughts clear, "If its complicated or hard to understand forget it, I don't want to know".
It is impossible to understand the workings of the Universe in detail without mathematics, because mathematics is the basis of the Universe.
To explain an idea or give a basic understanding of the workings, we use simple analogies.
Look at AugustusMinimus's one above, the Universe isn't made of paper, nor are the galaxies 10cm apart, but the analogy works to explain a concept.

gkell2

[QUOTE=Cú Giobach;777219

1. 52]The distance to a galaxy does not determine its age, that is determined by when it was formed. Galaxies further away appear younger because we are looking back in time to when most galaxies were forming.[/QUOTE]
   
   If victims wish to be bombarded with the idea that the oldest galaxies are the furthest in a younger/smaller Universe then they have to be prepared to accept, through logical consistency required of any theory,that the nearest galaxies are the youngest in an older/larger Universe -
   
   http://www.space.com/10691-oldest-galaxy-discovered-hubble-space-telescope.html
   
   It is not a matter of right or wrong but what people are prepared to accept and that is basically it as far as 'big bang' goes.All that nonsense does is distract teachers from teaching students properly and using their interpretative skills to work out details of solar system structure and motions within it or the link between planetary dynamics as the cause of terrestrial effects.
   
   'Big bang' will fade because there are so many interesting things going on in the celestial arena that you can see with all the online tools of today rather than any attempt to prove it wrong,again,all that is asked of any idea is consistency and the cracks appear spectacularly and quickly if people really give what you say some thought before moving on to a better and more stable narrative.
   
   Like politics,you can fool some of the people a lot of the time but that is not the issue here,it is a different type of astronomy waiting for those who can make the effort to become comfortable with modern online tools.

Cú Giobach

gkell2 wrote: »

If victims wish to be bombarded with the idea that the oldest galaxies are the furthest in a younger/smaller Universe then they have to be prepared to accept, through logical consistency required of any theory,that the nearest galaxies are the youngest in an older/larger Universe -

http://www.space.com/10691-oldest-galaxy-discovered-hubble-space-telescope.html
.

If you look back to nearly the start of the Universe there are very few Galaxies around because most hadn't formed at that stage, so when one is spotted 500 million years after the formation of the Universe then yes, it must be one of the oldest galaxies.
It does not follow that nearby galaxies are younger, because a galaxy right next door to us could have begun forming 500 million years ago too, but we would have no way of seeing it, since how far back we look is determined by how far away we look.
Your so called "logical consistency" is nothing of the sort.

Now if you can explain why this isn't so please do, and instead of using your incoherent and mindless ramblings, why don't you do so in a way that people other than you can understand.

gkell2

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If you look back to nearly the start of the Universe there are very few Galaxies around because most hadn't formed at that stage, so when one is spotted 500 million years after the formation of the Universe then yes, it must be one of the oldest galaxies.
It does not follow that nearby galaxies are younger, because a galaxy right next door to us could have begun forming 500 million years ago too, but we would have no way of seeing it, since how far back we look is determined by how far away we look.
Your so called "logical consistency" is nothing of the sort.

Logical consistency is proposing that the oldest galaxies are the furthest away in a smaller/younger Universe and the article proposes that view so you can't have any complaints with the same conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in a larger/older Universe otherwise the whole thing falls apart,even if somebody else doesn't tell you,they already figured out the absurdity by now.

This modeling nonsense without taking into account physical considerations has a beginning back in the late 17th century,an overreaching conclusion which tried to link astronomy directly to experimental sciences through the Ra/Dec system.Observers know this because when I come here to this forum,I find few with the ability to make line of sight judgments that are common to astronomers when considering retrograde motions,conjunctions , transits, eclipses and all the other good astronomical topics which were abandoned for mathematical modeling and modelers who just don't have a feel for the celestial arena.

I can actually explain with as many graphics and texts as necessary,and I don't think anyone would doubt it,where the whole thing went sideways but from my understanding is that readers prefer to stick with trying to comprehend conceptual impossibilities than work through the details of what is right in order to discover what went wrong.The main resolution for retrograde motion as an illusion due to the Earth's orbital motion is a case in point,readers can see where Newton jumped the tracks and they should have no reason to believe that 'big bang' is from the same unstable narrative of Newton's followers,in case you miss the point,it is called common sense.

Cú Giobach

gkell2 wrote: »

Logical consistency is proposing that the oldest galaxies are the furthest away in a smaller/younger Universe and the article proposes that view so you can't have any complaints with the same conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in a larger/older Universe otherwise the whole thing falls apart,even if somebody else doesn't tell you,they already figured out the absurdity by now.

I have already explained where you are going wrong, and since you refuse to discuss the points I raised to explain this and instead just repeat yourself, there is no point in me wasting my time commenting further.
Bye.

gkell2

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I have already explained where you are going wrong, and since you refuse to discuss the points I raised to explain this and instead just repeat yourself, there is no point in me wasting my time commenting further.
Bye.

Suit yourself,the problem isn't what you do but what observers don't do and that is to go outside and look out with nothing more than their eyes at what is happening and from watching the weather forecast,after tonight the blanket of cloud will disappear and the planets will appear in all their magnificence.The dazzling Venus as it sweeps around the Sun and comes closer to our slower moving planet will get the attention of those who don't normally look out for those things and somebody was good enough to create a montage which reflects what we see of Venus over time as it circuits the Sun -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg

There is always going to be a very small audience to work through the details of what went wrong and for my part it is only to free up productive information rather than to swamp readers with information they don't need,while the distortions and errors are serious,there is nothing there that can't be fixed and a return to a stable narrative everyone can appreciate.

I have found over the years that followers of Newton don't know or don't want to know what he was trying to do but for everyone else it amounts to a descent of astronomy from an interpretative discipline to a speculative/modeling one that now takes it name,basically Newton tried to model planetary dynamics and solar system structure using watches the same way his followers today try to model climate using computers with the same recklessness of taking shortcuts,distortions and what have you to force through a conclusion.If readers hear of Newton's 'clockwork solar system' it is effectively just that,built around the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec.

Probably the best commentary of the lot is a painting by William Blake,sometimes people can be so mesmerized by what is in other people's heads or on paper that they forget to look out into the great celestial arena hence the pitch black background in his painting or just walking on the beach or countryside -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Newton-WilliamBlake.jpg

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour."
William Blake

AugustusMinimus

What on earth are you on about ?

gkell2

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

What on earth are you on about ?

You know what many of the victims remind me of when they come here asking questions of big bangers ? -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

I can't answer for human nature but I can answer for common sense and if there are observers who care to use online tools such as imaging,orrerys and the texts of the great astronomers they will experience genuine challenges by actually going outside and enjoying the limitless expanse of space and the great events that take place within it.They may even add to the insights of this great spectacle with familiarity .

Amtmann

gkell, ponder this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlH5X-YhdkE

kopite davo

no one knows is my guess.

Wh1stler

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Yes, photons aren't affected by anything until they are absorbed.

The red shift we observe due to expansion is only relative to the observer.
Photons are "unchanging and timeless".

I'm sorry but I'm having trouble with this.

Surely the red-shift is entirely due to the relative speed of the photon to the detector which in the region of the detector is unaffected by expansion.

Suppose a photon is emitted from a galaxy adjacent to ours to be detected on earth. Now, if the distance between the galaxies is increasing at say half a light year per year due to expansion then when the photon arrives at the mid-point between the two galaxies, the distance between the photon and the detector will increase one-quarter light year per year. When the photon covers half the remaining distance, expansion will increase the distance by only an eighth of a light year per year.

In other words, the effect of expansion will be reduced continuously throughout the photon's journey. When that photon arrives at a point that is one light second away from the detector, the effect of expansion becomes negligible. If the rate of expansion has no effect on the photon, why should it be red-shifted at all except as a consequence of the relative velocities of the two galaxies?

If the increase in distance between the two galaxies is due entirely to expansion then photons shouldn't be red-shifted at all, should they?

Do you see what I mean? If galaxies are all receding from each other at the same rate then doesn't that suggest that galaxies have zero velocity of their own and but for expansion, would appear stationary relative to each other?

I mean, if galaxies were accelerating away from each other due to their own velocity, shouldn't the distances between galaxies be increasing more in one direction than another?

Wh1stler

Amtmann wrote: »

gkell, ponder this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlH5X-YhdkE

TBH, this seems like science imitating religion to me.

I'm sure that Richard's inability to understand the Universe will not impede our attempts to understand the Universe.

Cú Giobach

Wh1stler wrote: »

I'm sorry but I'm having trouble with this.

Surely the red-shift is entirely due to the relative speed of the photon to the detector which in the region of the detector is unaffected by expansion.

Suppose a photon is emitted from a galaxy adjacent to ours to be detected on earth. Now, if the distance between the galaxies is increasing at say half a light year per year due to expansion then when the photon arrives at the mid-point between the two galaxies, the distance between the photon and the detector will increase one-quarter light year per year. When the photon covers half the remaining distance, expansion will increase the distance by only an eighth of a light year per year.

In other words, the effect of expansion will be reduced continuously throughout the photon's journey. When that photon arrives at a point that is one light second away from the detector, the effect of expansion becomes negligible. If the rate of expansion has no effect on the photon, why should it be red-shifted at all except as a consequence of the relative velocities of the two galaxies?

It is the relative velocity of the two galaxies that is responsible for the observed red shift (the relative speed between photon and detector is constant, irrespective of the speed of the detector or emitter. 300,000 km/s).
To show that it is not a change in the nature of a photon consider this, a detector on Earth measures the light from a distant galaxy and gets a redshift of x, now say you have a different detector in a spaceship travelling towards the distant galaxy at a high speed, that detector would measure the light as having a redshift of y, the only change was the speed of the detector, there was nothing to change the actual nature of the photons being detected, yet both methods of measurement would get different results.

If the increase in distance between the two galaxies is due entirely to expansion then photons shouldn't be red-shifted at all, should they?

Yes, because the wavelength is "stretched" due to expansion, and though expansion on a local level is negligible the wavelength has not been "squeezed" back to its original length just before it hits the detector.

Do you see what I mean? If galaxies are all receding from each other at the same rate then doesn't that suggest that galaxies have zero velocity of their own and but for expansion, would appear stationary relative to each other?
I mean, if galaxies were accelerating away from each other due to their own velocity, shouldn't the distances between galaxies be increasing more in one direction than another?

I don't get what you mean, the velocity of receding galaxies that we measure, is due to expansion.

gkell2

Wh1stler wrote: »

TBH, this seems like science imitating religion to me.

I'm sure that Richard's inability to understand the Universe will not impede our attempts to understand the Universe.

Although Sagan did much to popularize the names of many astronomers,he like Feymann tends to have an Orwellian manner in directing the works of astronomers towards ends which those men never intended such as the idea that the furthest galaxies are the oldest which sets the stage for the head wrecking venture of 'big bang'.

Newton's work which really began the speculative/modeling agenda surfaced in 1689 while Roemer's attempt to explain light speed using planetary comparisons emerged in 1676 so Feymann manufactures history to make it appear Roemer was following Newton -

"were ahead of schedule when Jupiter was close to the earth and behind
schedule when it was far away, a rather odd circumstance. Mr. Roemer
[Olaus Roemer, 1644-1710, Danish astronomer], having confidence in the
Law of Gravitation, came to the interesting conclusion that it takes
light some time to travel from the moons of Jupiter to the earth, and
what we are looking at when we see the moons is not how they are now
but how they were the time ago it took light to get here." Feymann

With online tools such as an orrery in tandem with contemporary imaging,observers can now enjoy images of Io and its shadow passing across the face of Jupiter with the gap between Io and its shadow changing as the Earth approaches or recedes from Jupiter or at least,this is what I realized as few years ago. -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap021207.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990423.html

http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html

There are problems with Ole Roemer's view for fairly technical reasons,one of which is that a full set of Equation of Time tables didn't appear until John Harrison created them over a century later but at least observers interested in astronomy can gain some insight into how Roemer uses the varying distances between Earth and Jupiter to come up with his solution for the anomalous motion of Io .

Amtmann

Wh1stler wrote: »

TBH, this seems like science imitating religion to me.

I'm sure that Richard's inability to understand the Universe will not impede our attempts to understand the Universe.

In fact, he was describing quantum mechanics, which as we know, is the most successful theory put forth in terms of making testable, reliable predictions. In terms of why the predictions work, Feynman was honest enough to admit that he doesn't know. He just knew that they did, as determined by many repeatable experiments.

gkell2

Amtmann wrote: »

gkell, ponder this:

Well that is all triumphalism and besides he is paraphrasing Galileo who was talking about geometric proofs and I don't even agree with that either,at least up to a point -

"The laws of Nature are written in the language of mathematics ... the
symbols are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without
whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word." Galileo


Today any reader here can go to time lapse footage or sequential imaging and comprehend astronomical observations and even match them up with the geometrical proofs of astronomers.With Mars presently moving backwards against the background stars as the Earth overtakes it,readers can use contemporary imaging to square it away with Kepler's representation -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils ,
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the
centre,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler

The point here is that contemporary imaging makes the geometric proofs of the older astronomers comprehensible to the interested reader rather than the popular view that mathematics makes the Universe almost incomprehensible.In Feymann's view he is more or less talking himself up rather than talking the listener and student down,you can get away with it but it doesn't make it good or right.

AugustusMinimus

Are you actually trying to say that one of the most prominent physicists of the 20C, a Nobel Laureate no less is wrong ?

Wh1stler

Cú Giobach wrote: »

It is the relative velocity of the two galaxies that is responsible for the observed red shift (the relative speed between photon and detector is constant, irrespective of the speed of the detector or emitter. 300,000 km/s).

Sorry, I was rather under the impression that relative velocity has an effect on momentum and hence energy and that a red-shift is effectively a 'perceived' change of wavelength due to the change in momentum which is the resultant of relative velocity.

Suppose you were to fix two detectors on opposite sides of a spinning disk and that you placed a photon source which emits photons at a constant rate and at a constant energy, 'e', at a distance, 'd', from the axis of rotation.

As the disc spins, the detectors will show a signal that oscillates between red-shift and blue-shift. When the detectors arrive positions that are equidistant from the emitter, the one travelling away from the emitter will show a red-shift and the other which is travelling towards the emitter will show a blue-shift.

But when the detectors arrive at a position where one is at its closest point to the emitter while the other is at its furthest, neither will show any shift at all.

Couldn't this be explained by saying that the detector that shows a blue-shift is encountering more photons per unit of time than the one showing a red-shift and furthermore, the blue-shifted photons are hitting the detector 'harder' than the red-shifted ones?

How can the relative speeds of the photons to the detectors remain constant?

Cú Giobach wrote: »

To show that it is not a change in the nature of a photon consider this, a detector on Earth measures the light from a distant galaxy and gets a redshift of x, now say you have a different detector in a spaceship travelling towards the distant galaxy at a high speed, that detector would measure the light as having a redshift of y, the only change was the speed of the detector, there was nothing to change the actual nature of the photons being detected, yet both methods of measurement would get different results.

Yes, I can see how that might be the case.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Yes, because the wavelength is "stretched" due to expansion, and though expansion on a local level is negligible the wavelength has not been "squeezed" back to its original length just before it hits the detector.

But how can expansion directly affect the wavelength of a photon if it has no effect on the photon? If 'time' and 'distance' cannot be experienced by a photon, how can expansion affect the wavelength?

This seems somehow contradictory.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I don't get what you mean, the velocity of receding galaxies that we measure, is due to expansion.

Which suggests that because galaxies are evenly spread (more or less) throughout the Universe, galaxies have little, if any, intrinsic velocity of their own.

If photons are travelling at a velocity 'c' relative to space and galaxies are not moving at all relative to space then when a photon arrives at a detector, it should have the same velocity and energy as it did when it was emitted. i.e., there should be no shift at all.

I'm sorry if this seems a little vague but it is difficult to put this concept into words.

Wh1stler

Amtmann wrote: »

In fact, he was describing quantum mechanics, which as we know, is the most successful theory put forth in terms of making testable, reliable predictions. In terms of why the predictions work, Feynman was honest enough to admit that he doesn't know. He just knew that they did, as determined by many repeatable experiments.

He spent four and a half minutes telling me absolutely nothing. In fact, most of the talks I've heard from him say a similar thing, 'Don't bother trying to understand or explain it; I can't do it so neither can you.'

It comes across as elitism to me.

Wh1stler

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Are you actually trying to say that one of the most prominent physicists of the 20C, a Nobel Laureate no less is wrong ?

Are you saying that makes him infallible?

Like Newton was? Or Einstein?

Amtmann

Wh1stler wrote: »

He spent four and a half minutes telling me absolutely nothing.

It's a 4.5-minute excerpt from an hour-long lecture.

AugustusMinimus

Not infallible. But I'll take his word on most physics subjects over gkell's.

gkell2

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Are you actually trying to say that one of the most prominent physicists of the 20C, a Nobel Laureate no less is wrong ?

I present contemporary imaging which matches up with Kepler's representation of the motion of Mars over 16 years and expect only that observers can agree that they do match up in principle for the contemporary sequence of images is a partial representation of Kepler's diagram -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

Holding the cursor on the NASA image unveils the background constellations which match up with the symbols on the outer rim of Kepler's representation.

Unlike Feynmann there were once mathematicians who conceded they didn't know how Newton arrived at his conclusions regarding the work of Kepler yet seemed to be right and that is where contemporary imaging comes in -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results." W.W.Rouse Ball 1908

If even one reader here can match the contemporary imaging with Kepler's representation at this important juncture in astronomy and science,they will start to see something new and they may not like it insofar as this is where the great interpretative discipline of astronomy became lost to the predictive/modeling agendas and the celestial arena became a dumping ground for theorists.

This is not a tribunal to find people wrong or corrupt,it provides a picture with as many online tools as is possible to make clear what was not for many centuries whether it is the works of Copernicus and Kepler or the later mutations introduced in the late 17th century.

Wh1stler

Amtmann wrote: »

It's a 4.5-minute excerpt from an hour-long lecture.

I know. I'm sorry if I came across as flippant. I just object a little to being told what I'm not capable of.

And let's face it, there will eventually be a scientist or a discovery that will bring us even closer to understanding the Universe we inhabit.

Wh1stler

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Not infallible. But I'll take his word on most physics subjects over gkell's.

Well, someone has to discover the 'next big thing'. Why not gkell? Or you for that matter.

Scientists are only human and have no real advantage over other humans.

slade_x

Wh1stler wrote: »

But how can expansion directly affect the wavelength of a photon if it has no effect on the photon? If 'time' and 'distance' cannot be experienced by a photon, how can expansion affect the wavelength?

This seems somehow contradictory.

Because we observe it as a form of time dilation. Can i rephrase your question like this:

"how can increasing distance from a receeding repeating source affect the wavelength of a sound if it has no affect on the sound. If time and distance cannot be experienced by a sound how can increasing distance from a receeding repeating source affect the wavelength. Doppler effect is this time dilation. And it is relativistic.

We are not measuring individual photons. we are measuring the level of shift of a known spectral line of a specific chemical (for example) this signature of a chemical seems to shift in the spectrum of light as the source either approaches us or receeds away from us. The signature remains the same and identifiable.

We are all familiar with the doppler shift of a sound from a siren as it approaches or receeds from an observer not travelling with the siren. The ambulance driver for eg. doesnt perceive a change in wavelength (pitch) of the sound from the source (his siren). but an observer witnessing the ambulance race towards them and race away most certainly does. The sound itself doesnt change (nor does its velocity) just our perception of its intensity as each let me say "new sound wave" is sent as the ambulance is either closer to you with comparison to the time it sent the previous sound wave and vice versa. Thus compacting the amount of sound waves you observe (perceived shorter wavelength/ higher pitch) in the same relative amount of time as it approaches and vice versa respectively. Lets say the driver hears 5 oscillations every 5 seconds of the sound. an observer that the ambulance is approaching will hear more oscillations (a higher pitch) in their 5 seconds. Or less if it is receeding away.

To offer another possibly insulting example:

Say i have a pellet gun that can accelerate pellets to a muzzle velocity of 100 miles a second (and say this velocity remains constant until striking a target, this all occurs in a vacuum so no drag etc. ). Say also i have another observer 100 miles away with a pellet trap that would ping everytime a pellet was fired at it.

With the experiment setup i would proceed to fire 5 shots at 1 second intervals at the target (pellet trap). for every shot the pellet arrives at the target 1 second later. so within my experience of 5 seconds i have shot 5 pellets and within the observers experience of 5 seconds they would have observed 5 pings @ 1 second intervals also although obviously delayed by the 1 second travel time relative to me. So after 5 seconds i know i shot 5 pellets but after 5 seconds for me, the observer would only experience the ping of 4 shots. he would have to wait an additional 1 second for the 5th pellet to arrive at the target. Ok incredibly simple concept to grasp yes, we are both stationary. the space between us did not increase in this example. and the frequency of pellets hitting the target remained the same (1 shot per second) for me and for the observer, as it would with sound waves and light waves.

Now in the next example lets expand the space (increasing distance) between observer and I by 20 miles every second per shot in the opposite direction. I fire 5 shots at 1 seconds intervals at the target. The first pellet strikes the target 1 second later, the second pellet strikes the target 1.2 seconds later. the third pellet 1.4 seconds later. the fourth pellet 1.6 seconds later and the fifth pellet 1.8 seconds later. I fired 5 shots in 5 seconds. The observer observes 5 pings in 7 seconds. a different frequency than i observed. in the same amount of time; 5 seconds for the observer, they only observed 3 pings from the pellet trap. they would have had to wait .2 seconds longer to observe the 4th ping. the frequency of pellets hitting the target decreased for the observer in the same relative amount of time.

Now lets compress the distance by 20 miles ever second per shot toward the observer. i fire 5 shots at 1 second intervals at the target. The first pellet strikes the target 1 second later. the second pellet 0.8 seconds later. the third pellet 0.6 seconds later. the fourth pellet 0.4 seconds later and the fifth pellet 0.2 seconds later. i fired 5 pellets in 5 seconds. the observer observed 5 pings in 3 seconds. a much higher frequency than the source initially observed, me. 5 Seconds passed for me to shoot 5 pellets but only 3 seconds passed for the observer to observe 5 pellets hitting the pellet trap. the observer witnessed events in a shorter time so at a higher frequency.

The intensity of the pings decreased or increased, the pellets didnt change nor did their velocity. their frequency relative to the observer did when accelerating towards or receeding away. Knowing that the pellets had a 100 mile an hour constant velocity the observer could rightly conclude that i was either moving away from them or approaching them considering the difference in frequency of pings that they observed.

We measure the different colours of light as having different frequencies (wavelengths) obviously xrays have much shorter wavelengths than visible light, and visible light has shorter wavelengths than infrared. if the frequency we observe is different, then we see a difference in colour up or down, that known spectrum that is visible to us. if we know the signature of a specific chemical (absorption lines etc.), in the transmission of light from an approaching or receeding source that signature that we have identified, if it has shifted position in the spectrum, we know the signature and how to recognise it so we will see that shift. it will still be the same signature. As it is the same pellet hitting the target.

Wh1stler wrote: »

Well, someone has to discover the 'next big thing'. Why not gkell? Or you for that matter.

Scientists are only human and have no real advantage over other humans.

You mean scientists have no real advantage over other scientifically literate humans of course unless you factor in budgets and scientific equipment. For eg. the scientists (particle physicists) at cern have a significant advantage over Irish scientists (irish particle physicists) in the field of particle research because Ireland is not a contributing member of Cern. As will future generations have an advantage over us. they will have had the benefit of more experiments and more results if they continue the scientific method with which to draw conclusions from.

Cú Giobach

Wh1stler wrote: »

How can the relative speeds of the photons to the detectors remain constant?

Since Slade_x dealt with your other points, I'll only deal with this one.

The speed of light is constant, irrespective of the motion of the emitter, and is always measured the same, irrespective of the motion of the observer.
For example, if you were on a spaceship travelling at 10,000 km/s and you shone a beam of light in your direction of travel, the beam would not be travelling at 310,000 km/s, but still at c ie; 300,000 km/s.
And if you were travelling towards a beam of light on a spaceship at 10,000 km/s, you would still measure the speed of the beam as 300,000 km/s.

Check out the "Michelson-Morley experiment", This was one of the biggest ever discoveries in physics, the consequences of which Einstein later dealt with in his theories of relativity.

gkell2

slade_x wrote: »

You mean scientists have no real advantage over other scientifically literate humans of course unless you factor in budgets and scientific equipment. For eg. the scientists (particle physicists) at cern have a significant advantage over Irish scientists (irish particle physicists) in the field of particle research because Ireland is not a contributing member of Cern. As will future generations have an advantage over us. they will have had the benefit of more experiments and more results if they continue the scientific method with which to draw conclusions from.

What you are describing is not science proper but a culture,almost a cult,which often in the face of common sense,will force through conclusions that have no relevance to celestial or terrestrial phenomenon or to human understanding.The person today is asked to believe a particular ideology based on its acceptance by a majority of scientists rather than coming to an individual understanding in the same way people like Galileo,Kepler or anyone here would accept the reasons Copernicus give for the Earth's motions.After receiving an education that the Irish landscape and its biology was influenced by large scale natural temperature changes in remote antiquity ,they now are being forced to accept a majority opinion that humanity has control over global temperatures and despite indifference,it does bother people because it opposes common sense.

An individual comes here and raises an objection to 'big bang',perhaps points out where a proposal doesn't work or goes against the normal behavior of objects in space and either gets a runaround or is told they have yet to reach a certain intellectual level where there is an agreement among scientists.If their point is good they will suffer personal attack,if their point is weak then it will be exploited and they will be made to feel inferior and this is no way to carry on.The point is that when common sense is the issue then something is radically wrong and in a way one of the most important discoveries I made is that it is nothing new,many of the well known scientists wrote about the tendency of a group mentality to run away with itself -

" I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not
so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always
be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor
of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me
that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some
conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own
or because of their having received it from some person who has their
entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it
impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in
support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set
forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain
their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is
brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they
receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them
ill " Galileo

I think anyone who goes outside and enjoys walking the countryside or the beach,spends a few moments taking in the spectacle of the celestial arena does feel a sense of the immensity of age and scale of things without straining the mind for we too are part of the evolution of life on Earth as an individual,as a community,a nation,a species,within the wider context of biological and geological evolution,planetary evolution,solar system evolution and on to greater cycles so the individual is never cut off from the Universal but encompassed by it.More than anything else,what strains the mind unnaturally about the idea of 'big bang' is that we can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly and this way of thinking cuts us off from the connections we have with the evolutionary past and while the impossible concept may appear to be a product of superior intellect,it has no soul to it and exists only in the imagination.