# New proof of inflation (the Big Bang) -- "The smoking gun!"



## bsd3355

I am surprised no one has posted this, but here it is anyway...

Lawrence Krauss explains it well:

(discussion starts @ 1:10mins into video)


----------



## MrKappa

Anyways, yeah, seems as if someone shot from the hip...


----------



## MrKappa

I'm a Growing Earther...



The sheer sound of the theory itself, is simply beautiful on so many different political levels.

Never mind the overwhelming evidences.


----------



## bsd3355

Clarity's polar bear said:


> It's seemed the most suitable explanation to match the data for some time now. We don't need further proof. Anyone who disagrees is a flat earther.
> 
> jk I love you guys


To actually get physical evidence beyond the CMB is pretty epic. I think before discovering the gravitational waves, science relied mainly on math, but I could be wrong. We can't see beyond the CMB, so getting this evidence is pretty huge.


----------



## Tensor

Science triumphs again.


----------



## HelpfulHero

I am glad that they did this because it is a triumph of the mind for sure, however inflation makes me sad because it implies universal heat death however despite my feelings it may in fact be the case  Here's to hoping we discover something else in science.


----------



## bsd3355

HelpfulHero said:


> I am glad that they did this because it is a triumph of the mind for sure, however inflation makes me sad because it implies universal heat death however despite my feelings it may in fact be the case  Here's to hoping we discover something else in science.


Actually inflation means there will be a big freeze instead of heat death, unless it collapse back on itself, which doesnt appear to be happening. In fact, inflation keeps getting faster and faster. But it may collapse back on itself, which some theorize will happen, so the universe inflates then contracts back and forth, but im not sure this theory is taken seriously in science because lack of proof of contraction.

Also, the universe is indifferent to things. For some reason, i dont find that very sad. It is what it is. It's sad to us because we dont want to die and be cared for. But the universe is indifferent apparently to everything, including itself


----------



## MrKappa

bwidger85 said:


> Actually inflation means there will be a big freeze instead of heat death, unless it collapse back on itself, which doesnt appear to be happening.


No... it means the universe is finite, and everything we know now, is everything we will ever know.

Lights out... have a good one people...

Oh Look... it's Jesus... Heat Death...










Guys, I spent nine years putting toast into a toaster, and I knew Jesus would show himself to me!










Holy Mary Mother of Joseph! It's God creating Gravity at the dawn of time itself!










It's a Miracle!










Anyways, Nasa launched an advanced gravity satellite a few years ago with the intent to study the fine, minute and very delicate gravity fluctuations in our solar system.

Can't find the one I want to post, but this will do.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...2/nasa-twin-grail-satellites-map-moon-gravity

Anyways, the one I wanted to post is being positioned in orbit around the sun, lagging behind the earth by several months, in order to study gravity with fewer disturbances.

Anyways, what were they measuring the CMB with? Gravito-Heato technology?

I'm sure there is genuine science, to be had with this discovery, it is however unfortunate that it is now Toast, because of the Big Bang.

In other words, there are patterns in the CMB, and there has been an inference made, a guess, a preferred fancy, that it is gravitational influence, under the guise that the patterns being somehow related with a Big Bang theory. One of the more mysterious forces.

Would have been nice if they were less religious with the findings. Could be gravity influence from any period in time.

Geeze guys, could be dark matter / dark energy for all you enthusiasts out there.

Be nice if we could manipulate microwave heat radiation with gravity, I guess. Is that possible?

OMG it's anti-gravity. ;P

Now you guys have made me feel bad, because who am I to throw doubt into the faith and belief and others.

Believe what you want. Believe in yourself.


----------



## HelpfulHero

bwidger85 said:


> Actually inflation means there will be a big freeze instead of heat death, unless it collapse back on itself, which doesnt appear to be happening. In fact, inflation keeps getting faster and faster. But it may collapse back on itself, which some theorize will happen, so the universe inflates then contracts back and forth, but im not sure this theory is taken seriously in science because lack of proof of contraction.
> 
> Also, the universe is indifferent to things. For some reason, i dont find that very sad. It is what it is. It's sad to us because we dont want to die and be cared for. But the universe is indifferent apparently to everything, including itself





> The heat death of the universe is a historically suggested ultimate fate of the universe in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that consume energy (including computation and life). Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy). The hypothesis of heat death stems from the ideas of William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, who in the 1850s took the theory of heat as mechanical energy loss in nature (as embodied in the first two laws of thermodynamics) and extrapolated it to larger processes on a universal scale.
> Since Kelvin's day, it has been recognized by the foremost authority on thermodynamics, Max Planck, that the phrase 'entropy of the universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.[1][2] Kelvin's speculation falls with this recognition.





> Proposals about the final state of the universe depend on the assumptions made about its ultimate fate, and these assumptions have varied considerably over the late 20th century and early 21st century. In a hypothesized "closed" universe that undergoes recollapse, a heat death is expected to occur, with the universe approaching arbitrarily high temperature and maximal entropy as the end of the collapse approaches.[citation needed] In a hypothesized "open" or "flat" universe that continues expanding indefinitely, a heat death is also expected to occur,[11] with the universe cooling to approach absolute zero temperature and approaching a state of maximal entropy over a very long time period.


Other possibility is the big rip. I find it sad because I would like for humanity to be able to spread beyond the milky way one day.


----------



## bsd3355

^I see. So "heat death" is another word for entropy of the universe? This makes sense if the universe keeps expanding. I have also heard it to be called "the Big Freeze"; essentially, I suppose they mean the same thing. "Heat death" can be used two ways in this instance: one that collapses upon itself and increases temperature, or one of entropy that loses energy and temperature, so I find the term somewhat confusing to be used in both ways.

I also want humanity to expand. It seems such a waste to have billions and billions of galaxies out there and we haven't be able to live in any of them! But, after all, we have evolved solely for this planet. But it can be done, especially since certain elements are common among the universe, and we, and our planet, are made of them ourselves. And if other stuff is made of the same, which apparently it is, then there definitely is hope.


----------



## MrKappa

Don't forget the Big Crunch...










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch



> In physical cosmology, the Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity or causing a reformation of the universe starting with another big bang. Sudden singularities and crunch or rip singularities at late times occur only for hypothetical matter with implausible physical properties.[1]


----------



## Sacrieur

MrKappa said:


> Don't forget the Big Crunch...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch


Except the Universe is accelerating apart, not slowing down.


----------



## MrKappa

Accelerating into giant black holes? Sure Sure Sure... 

That's an interesting thought however, that inflation, has somehow propelled objects through a region of space and time, that does not exist, and gaining momentum in the process.

Interesting entry on the wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe



> The accelerating universe is the observation that the universe appears to be expanding at an increasing rate. In formal terms, this means that the cosmic scale factor a(t) has a positive second derivative,[1] so that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.[2] In 1998, observations of type Ia supernovae also suggested that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating[3][4] since around redshift of z~0.5.[5] The 2006 Shaw Prize in Astronomy and the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics were both awarded to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess, who in 1998 as leaders of the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter) and the High-Z Supernova Search Team (Schmidt and Riess) discovered the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant ("High-Z") supernovae.[6][7]


So basically, by observing a single supernovae, there has been a leap of logic that suggests the entire universe is expanding. How do you propose that proves the universe is accelerating? Perhaps the observed supernovae are the only objects accelerating? Or more appropriately, perhaps these unique objects in the sky, give off unique signatures.

How to you explain the distance of Quasars and why are we in the middle of the Universe?

Now mind you there is no citation on this, however, with anything theoretical about the universe, there rarely is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar



> The highest redshift quasar known (as of June 2011) is ULAS J1120+0641, with a redshift of 7.085, which corresponds to a proper distance of approximately 29 billion light-years from Earth (see more discussion of how cosmological distances can be greater than the light-travel time at Metric Expansion of Space).


----------



## Sacrieur

MrKappa said:


> Accelerating into giant black holes? Sure Sure Sure...
> 
> That's an interesting thought however, that inflation, has somehow propelled objects through a region of space and time, that does not exist, and gaining momentum in the process.
> 
> Interesting entry on the wiki...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
> 
> So basically, by observing a single supernovae, there has been a leap of logic that suggests the entire universe is expanding. How do you propose that proves the universe is accelerating? Perhaps the observed supernovae are the only objects accelerating? Or more appropriately, perhaps these unique objects in the sky, give off unique signatures.
> 
> How to you explain the distance of Quasars and why are we in the middle of the Universe?
> 
> Now mind you there is no citation on this, however, with anything theoretical about the universe, there rarely is.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar


Supernovae is plural for supernova.


----------



## bsd3355

MrKappa said:


> Accelerating into giant black holes? Sure Sure Sure...
> 
> That's an interesting thought however, that inflation, has somehow propelled objects through a region of space and time, that does not exist, and gaining momentum in the process.
> 
> Interesting entry on the wiki...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
> 
> So basically, by observing a single supernovae, there has been a leap of logic that suggests the entire universe is expanding. How do you propose that proves the universe is accelerating? Perhaps the observed supernovae are the only objects accelerating? Or more appropriately, perhaps these unique objects in the sky, give off unique signatures.
> 
> How to you explain the distance of Quasars and why are we in the middle of the Universe?
> 
> Now mind you there is no citation on this, however, with anything theoretical about the universe, there rarely is.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar


"Anyways"... (super annoying way to use this word repeatedly btw...)

Obviously you haven't read much into it because if you did you'd realize that this observation didn't just come from one supernova. It is known because ALL the galaxies observed around us are moving farther way from us.

http://www.livescience.com/32260-how-do-scientists-know-the-universe-is-expanding.html

Are you going to prove that gravity doesn't exist now? Please do. We are all waiting to hear about it...

I don't even know why you tried to argue with me when I said that the universe is expanding by saying that the universe is infinite. Isn't that the whole point we were trying to make?

It took me one google search to find that link.


----------



## MrKappa

Anywhoo... are you going to defend science with logic and reason or do the jihad gammer nazi thing?

Quasars, how do you defend your faith?


----------



## Sacrieur

MrKappa said:


> Anywhoo... are you going to defend science with logic and reason or do the jihad gammer nazi thing?
> 
> Quasars, how do you defend your faith?


I think you're fundamentally overestimating your own knowledge of the subject and frankly I'm not very well educated in cosmology myself so I couldn't tell you the details. You really should give astronomers and cosmologists more credit, they do know what they're doing.


----------



## Azazello

bwidger85 said:


> Actually inflation means...


When approaching this subject it helps not to confuse _inflation_, an event that occurred approximately between 10^(-36) seconds after T=0 and 10^(-33), with _expansion_ of a universe. _Inflation _ended almost as soon as it began, whilst _expansion _is ongoing.

The recent discovery relates to the inflation event and is an astonishing finding. Let's just hope it is confirmed by the Planck satellite's data later this year.


----------



## MrKappa

Sacrieur said:


> I think you're fundamentally overestimating your own knowledge of the subject and frankly I'm not very well educated in cosmology myself so I couldn't tell you the details. You really should give astronomers and cosmologists more credit, they do know what they're doing.


Quasars are among the most powerful events in the Universe, and their redshift indicates they are all extremely distant.

They appear if you ask me, to be some type of stage in Galactic evolution. Black holes to the max.

You are correct, my knowledge is less than all encompassing, however don't let my thirst for knowledge, slam the brakes on your search.

I am no fanatic.

If Quasars are among the oldest, or farthest objects in the night sky, and they are indeed representative of galactic evolution, how does that play a role in the overall cosmic evolution of the Universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar



> Quasars show a very high redshift, which is an effect of the expansion of the universe between the quasar and the Earth.[3] When combined with Hubble's law, the implication of the redshift is that the quasars are very distant in space and time, and it follows, very ancient objects. They tend to inhabit the very center of active, young galaxies, and are among the most luminous, powerful, and energetic objects known in the universe, emitting up to a thousand times the energy output of the Milky Way, which contains 200-400 billion stars.


I am simply calling into question the properties of redshifts themselves, and questioning whether or not redshift is a property of distance, alone.

Surely if they are the youngest objects, they should predominate the very edges of the Universe. They should exclusively be found at the farthest regions of space.

This does not appear to be fundamentally true.

Wouldn't that be miraculous? A Universe within reach?

Oh Geeze, reading this a second time, I see the ambiguity. So, again.

If Quasars are the youngest/farthest objects in the Universe, they should be the ONLY things at the farthest reaches of space. The ONLY thing.

Seems as if totally normal galaxies exist at the farthest reaches of space.

http://www.space.com/23306-ancient-galaxy-farthest-ever-seen.html



> By using data collected by the Hubble Space Telescope and observations from the Keck I telescope at the Keck Observatory in Hawaii, astronomers have now confirmed that the galaxy designated z8_GND_5296 formed within 700 million years after the beginning of the universe, making it the oldest and most distant galaxy ever verified.


So, Quasars and their distance cannot be a fundamental proof of age or stellar evolution.

If a Quasar is distant due to age, then they should be the ONLY things at the farthest reaches of space.

If they are a function of density and stellar mass, than the probability of collision between several Galaxies must exist closer near our own.

The only logical conclusion is that we simply have not found additional evidence to prove or disprove these possibilities. Rendering the Big Bang a theory and nothing more.

Or, Redshift is not a function of distance only.

Sure, sure. I guess there is one other possibility. That Quasars are an advanced stage that all Black Holes or other possible phenomenon will achieve, hence, this space, where we reside, is equally as old as any other piece of space, as inflation specifically dictates, making it absolutely impossible for Quasars to only exist at the very farthest reaches of space.

Inflation theory specifically dictates that a singularity moment created everything in an instant, and the Universe has been expanding ever since, rendering every single particle in space time, every point in space, equally as old, and absolutely susceptible to the laws of time and aging.

I understand the popular notion, that Quasars are the youngest, farthest, and most energetic objects in the Universe, because the most energetic must be where the most energy "was", at the beginning of time space.

So, I can only iterate as I have done many time before in the past.

If Quasars are the youngest most energetic objects at the farthest reaches of space time, then they must be more densely distributed at the edges of space time.

Yet, Hubble Deep field shows no evidence of the beginning of space time being more densely packed spatially.

Maybe you'll say, well, Quasars are more densely packed, and they represent a more spatially dense Universe at the beginning of time, regardless of the 360 view that is the Universe as we know things, and that the Universe is indeed made of "Bendy Light", and I will simply ask you, where in the time frame of the 13 Billion year universe, and the 4.6 Billion year old earth is there room for a Quasar to create new Galaxies such as our own?

More importantly where in the CMB is evidence of these energetic Quasars shaping the beginning of space time, they must be absolutely map-able in one way shape or form, capable of being prediced, spatially, based on the proposed theory of gravitational forces shaping the CMB energies. Where there is the least density in the CMB, there must be an equally proportional "space" or "gap in space" viewable in the Deep Field, and where the most density occurs, there must be a "Quasar". Or vice versa, for all I know, Quasars could suck the heat out of the CMB. However, there must be some type of progression, some definitive linearity from the moment of singularity, to our current evolutionary point in space time.

As it stand now, there is the CMB, and a HUGE leap in logic, in terms of stellar evolution.

My only true religious biases come into play when the possibility of an infinite age, of the Universe, with an infinite space, neither contracting or expanding at rates which are horrific, may detract people from understanding the possibility that the Universe being a potentially extremely more ancient place, that it is teeming with life, possibilities and excitement, that sort of thought may be considered "evil", more "outlandish" by a majority of those wishing control over the hearts and minds of others, through "God".

"Do not touch or reach towards, the forbidden fruits"

There is no citation on this wiki entry, so explore with an open mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar



> The highest redshift quasar known (as of June 2011) is ULAS J1120+0641, with a redshift of 7.085, which corresponds to a proper distance of approximately 29 billion light-years from Earth (see more discussion of how cosmological distances can be greater than the light-travel time at Metric Expansion of Space).


29 Billion Light years away.

So , here is the proposal as it resides on Harvards website.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011sptz.prop80114W



> In UKIDSS we recently discovered the bright quasar ULAS J1120+0641, of redshift z=7.08, the highest redshift quasar known by a large margin.


Honestly. I am no cosmologist, so this is a quick grab from a Swedish educational website.

http://www.math.kth.se/~lang/distance.htm



> One finds that the galaxy with z=1 is now 10.82 billion light years away. A galaxy with z=2 is 17.11 billion light years away.


Will take me some time to understand potential differences with redshifts as applied with Qausars specifically, and how redshifts are a defacto measure of distance/time

;(

Does anyone else see the glaringly obvious problem with the CMB which is electro magnetic radiation from the very youngest of space time, being able to reach us, yet many astronomical explanations of expansion suggest that the earliest light, will simply never reach us?

Where is the edge? And once again, why are we in the center of space time.

It is SOOOOO much easier and way more logical to accept that the Universe is infinitely spatial, infinitely old, and that we are in the center because our observable limit of the Universe places us there, and that the Universe is constantly recycling, and we are witness to the different stages of the Universe in perpetual and repetitive evolution.

A static Universe, or an Einstien Universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe



> Albert Einstein added a positive cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the attractive effects of gravity on ordinary matter, which would otherwise cause a spatially finite universe to either collapse or expand forever.


Hmmmnnn... I guess I can come halfway with this and suggest that if a Quasar is a super-massive black hole in some evolutionary term, that hey, maybe the possibility of light escaping the gravitational force of that super massive event, makes it appear way more distant.

Hence, potentially placing Quasars, right next door with us.

I'm still not buying into the CMB being evidence of a big bang inflationary event. I see no reason to even suspect that that's what it is.

So. Or anyways.

If gravity "wells" at it's center, creates a pattern of rotation which is a fundamental truth throughout the Universe, and is a function of mass, then at the very center of Earth, there may be a Gravitation "well".

What sort of possibilities does that present?






Anyways, these are interesting wiki entries worth considering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light



> Tired light is a class of hypothetical redshift mechanisms that was proposed as an alternative explanation for the redshift-distance relationship.


Or at the very least, consider that light is capable of escaping the gravitational force of a super massive black hole.

Something, anything except this preposterous belief that the Universe is expanding at a rate that makes it's edges undetectable, while an electromagnetic CMB is somehow proof positive of the Big Bang, rather than radiant heat from every corner of the Universe.


----------



## beli mawr

MrKappa said:


> So basically, by observing a single supernovae





MrKappa said:


> gammer nazi


LOL



MrKappa said:


> I am simply calling into question the properties of redshifts themselves, and questioning whether or not redshift is a property of distance, alone.


Redshift is not a property of distance, but of the result of the motion of an object, in this case moving away from us. If it were moving toward us, it would be 'blue shift'. It's the Doppler effect we're all familiar with. From this, we infer an object's distance.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/redshift.html (Sorry, not Wikipedia Link).

I fail to see how that youtube link you post in every science thread is even related to every science thread.


----------



## bsd3355

Azazello said:


> When approaching this subject it helps not to confuse _inflation_, an event that occurred approximately between 10^(-36) seconds after T=0 and 10^(-33), with _expansion_ of a universe. _Inflation _ended almost as soon as it began, whilst _expansion _is ongoing.
> 
> The recent discovery relates to the inflation event and is an astonishing finding. Let's just hope it is confirmed by the Planck satellite's data later this year.


Thanks for the heads up. I realized I'm the idiot when I related it to the entire expansion


----------



## bsd3355

MrKappa said:


> Quasars are among the most powerful events in the Universe, and their redshift indicates they are all extremely distant.
> 
> They appear if you ask me, to be some type of stage in Galactic evolution. Black holes to the max.
> 
> You are correct, my knowledge is less than all encompassing, however don't let my thirst for knowledge, slam the brakes on your search.
> 
> I am no fanatic.
> 
> If Quasars are among the oldest, or farthest objects in the night sky, and they are indeed representative of galactic evolution, how does that play a role in the overall cosmic evolution of the Universe?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
> 
> I am simply calling into question the properties of redshifts themselves, and questioning whether or not redshift is a property of distance, alone.
> 
> Surely if they are the youngest objects, they should predominate the very edges of the Universe. They should exclusively be found at the farthest regions of space.
> 
> This does not appear to be fundamentally true.
> 
> Wouldn't that be miraculous? A Universe within reach?
> 
> Oh Geeze, reading this a second time, I see the ambiguity. So, again.
> 
> If Quasars are the youngest/farthest objects in the Universe, they should be the ONLY things at the farthest reaches of space. The ONLY thing.
> 
> Seems as if totally normal galaxies exist at the farthest reaches of space.
> 
> http://www.space.com/23306-ancient-galaxy-farthest-ever-seen.html
> 
> So, Quasars and their distance cannot be a fundamental proof of age or stellar evolution.
> 
> If a Quasar is distant due to age, then they should be the ONLY things at the farthest reaches of space.
> 
> If they are a function of density and stellar mass, than the probability of collision between several Galaxies must exist closer near our own.
> 
> The only logical conclusion is that we simply have not found additional evidence to prove or disprove these possibilities. Rendering the Big Bang a theory and nothing more.
> 
> Or, Redshift is not a function of distance only.
> 
> Sure, sure. I guess there is one other possibility. That Quasars are an advanced stage that all Black Holes or other possible phenomenon will achieve, hence, this space, where we reside, is equally as old as any other piece of space, as inflation specifically dictates, making it absolutely impossible for Quasars to only exist at the very farthest reaches of space.
> 
> Inflation theory specifically dictates that a singularity moment created everything in an instant, and the Universe has been expanding ever since, rendering every single particle in space time, every point in space, equally as old, and absolutely susceptible to the laws of time and aging.
> 
> I understand the popular notion, that Quasars are the youngest, farthest, and most energetic objects in the Universe, because the most energetic must be where the most energy "was", at the beginning of time space.
> 
> So, I can only iterate as I have done many time before in the past.
> 
> If Quasars are the youngest most energetic objects at the farthest reaches of space time, then they must be more densely distributed at the edges of space time.
> 
> Yet, Hubble Deep field shows no evidence of the beginning of space time being more densely packed spatially.
> 
> Maybe you'll say, well, Quasars are more densely packed, and they represent a more spatially dense Universe at the beginning of time, regardless of the 360 view that is the Universe as we know things, and that the Universe is indeed made of "Bendy Light", and I will simply ask you, where in the time frame of the 13 Billion year universe, and the 4.6 Billion year old earth is there room for a Quasar to create new Galaxies such as our own?
> 
> More importantly where in the CMB is evidence of these energetic Quasars shaping the beginning of space time, they must be absolutely map-able in one way shape or form, capable of being prediced, spatially, based on the proposed theory of gravitational forces shaping the CMB energies. Where there is the least density in the CMB, there must be an equally proportional "space" or "gap in space" viewable in the Deep Field, and where the most density occurs, there must be a "Quasar". Or vice versa, for all I know, Quasars could suck the heat out of the CMB. However, there must be some type of progression, some definitive linearity from the moment of singularity, to our current evolutionary point in space time.
> 
> As it stand now, there is the CMB, and a HUGE leap in logic, in terms of stellar evolution.
> 
> My only true religious biases come into play when the possibility of an infinite age, of the Universe, with an infinite space, neither contracting or expanding at rates which are horrific, may detract people from understanding the possibility that the Universe being a potentially extremely more ancient place, that it is teeming with life, possibilities and excitement, that sort of thought may be considered "evil", more "outlandish" by a majority of those wishing control over the hearts and minds of others, through "God".
> 
> "Do not touch or reach towards, the forbidden fruits"
> 
> There is no citation on this wiki entry, so explore with an open mind.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
> 
> 29 Billion Light years away.
> 
> So , here is the proposal as it resides on Harvards website.
> 
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011sptz.prop80114W
> 
> Honestly. I am no cosmologist, so this is a quick grab from a Swedish educational website.
> 
> http://www.math.kth.se/~lang/distance.htm
> 
> Will take me some time to understand potential differences with redshifts as applied with Qausars specifically, and how redshifts are a defacto measure of distance/time
> 
> ;(
> 
> Does anyone else see the glaringly obvious problem with the CMB which is electro magnetic radiation from the very youngest of space time, being able to reach us, yet many astronomical explanations of expansion suggest that the earliest light, will simply never reach us?
> 
> Where is the edge? And once again, why are we in the center of space time.
> 
> It is SOOOOO much easier and way more logical to accept that the Universe is infinitely spatial, infinitely old, and that we are in the center because our observable limit of the Universe places us there, and that the Universe is constantly recycling, and we are witness to the different stages of the Universe in perpetual and repetitive evolution.
> 
> A static Universe, or an Einstien Universe.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
> 
> Hmmmnnn... I guess I can come halfway with this and suggest that if a Quasar is a super-massive black hole in some evolutionary term, that hey, maybe the possibility of light escaping the gravitational force of that super massive event, makes it appear way more distant.
> 
> Hence, potentially placing Quasars, right next door with us.
> 
> I'm still not buying into the CMB being evidence of a big bang inflationary event. I see no reason to even suspect that that's what it is.
> 
> So. Or anyways.
> 
> If gravity "wells" at it's center, creates a pattern of rotation which is a fundamental truth throughout the Universe, and is a function of mass, then at the very center of Earth, there may be a Gravitation "well".
> 
> What sort of possibilities does that present?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, these are interesting wiki entries worth considering.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
> 
> Or at the very least, consider that light is capable of escaping the gravitational force of a super massive black hole.
> 
> Something, anything except this preposterous belief that the Universe is expanding at a rate that makes it's edges undetectable, while an electromagnetic CMB is somehow proof positive of the Big Bang, rather than radiant heat from every corner of the Universe.


Well, being I'm way too lazy to do this research, you may or may not be right! lol

So for now I'll sneak my way out as if I never even attempted to claim anything about anything was correct...


----------



## Azazello

bwidger85 said:


> Thanks for the heads up. I realized I'm the idiot when I related it to the entire expansion


Don't beat yourself up about it, it's not unheard of for the scientists themselves to make this sort of slip. But it's one thing to do when you realise the difference and another when you think the two are the same, which many people who are not familiar with cosmology assume.


----------



## arnie

New proof that God smokes cannibals.


----------



## El Chupanibre

So someone correct me if I'm wrong, the big bang theory describes the inflation of spacetime itself, not the movement of matter in the sense that we'd typically associate with an "explosion"?


----------



## Azazello

El Chupanibre said:


> So someone correct me if I'm wrong, the big bang theory describes the inflation of spacetime itself.


Expansion would be a better term. This might help understand the difference.


----------



## MrKappa

beli mawr said:


> I fail to see how that youtube link you post in every science thread is even related to every science thread.


Want to know where the Earths water came from?

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=509201

In fact, that's where all the solar systems water comes from... you can kiss that theoretical Oort Cloud goodbye! Every planetary object with an electromagnetic field, that's where the water comes from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud

Hydrogen + Oxygen + Sparky Sparky = Water










Totally basic chemistry, and honestly, it's somewhat of a totally elusive mystery with everyone, for reasons totally unknown with me.



> They are most commonly observed in the summer months at latitudes between 50° and 70° north and south of the equator.
> 
> Noctilucent clouds are not fully understood and are a recently discovered meteorological phenomenon; there is no record of their observation before 1885.


Um... because the aurora borealis are a constant source of electric flux?

Give me alls your moneys!



beli mawr said:


> Redshift is not a property of distance, but of the result of the motion of an object, in this case moving away from us. If it were moving toward us, it would be 'blue shift'. It's the Doppler effect we're all familiar with. From this, we infer an object's distance.


Huh? So basically what you are saying is the Quasars are blasting away from us at speeds that break the speed of light? Or are you suggesting they are hurling towards us and total annihilation is near?

Doppler... is when waves coalesce over top of each other. When the object creating a wave, is moving faster than the waves themselves.

Breaking the speed of sound barrier. Mach one, and so on.

You could say that a race car going around a track has a Doppler effect, but lets be real, it's only getting closer/louder, and the race cars movement is constant.

Anyways, I don't really believe in a large portion of what is popular science theory. Honestly, the majority of the time, it's as if I'm fighting jihadists. For real...

Math abstracts reality, it doesn't create reality, and since the dawn of video games, we've totally perverted our logics and crossed the boundaries into technology worshiping. Very detached from reality, we are.

Anyone want to talk about how ridiculous the moon being smashed from the earth by a giant meteor is?

How about the Deccan Traps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps



> The Deccan Traps are a large igneous province located on the Deccan Plateau of west-central India (between 17°-24°N, 73°-74°E) and one of the largest volcanic features on Earth. They consist of multiple layers of solidified flood basalt that together are more than 2,000 m (6,562 ft) thick and cover an area of 500,000 km2 (193,051 sq mi) and a volume of 512,000 km3 (123,000 cu mi).


http://www.livescience.com/25324-volcanoes-killed-dinosaurs.html



> "Our new information calls for a reassessment of what really caused the K-T mass extinction," said Gerta Keller, a geologist at Princeton University who conducted the study.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event












> The blue graph shows the apparent percentage (not the absolute number) of marine animal genera becoming extinct during any given time interval. It does not represent all marine species, just those that are readily fossilized. The labels of the "Big Five" extinction events are clickable hyperlinks; see Extinction event for more details. (source and image info)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event



> Oceanic anoxic events or anoxic events occur when the Earth's oceans become completely depleted of oxygen (O2) below the surface levels. The similar term euxinia refers to anoxic conditions in the presence of H
> 2S hydrogen sulfide. Although anoxic events have not happened for millions of years, the geological record shows that they happened many times in the past. Anoxic events may have caused mass extinctions.[1] These mass extinctions include some that geobiologists use as time markers in biostratigraphic dating. It is believed[2] oceanic anoxic events are strongly linked to lapses in key oceanic current circulations, to climate warming and greenhouse gases.


Most the worlds volcanic activity, is happening under the oceans...

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seamounts.html



> New estimates suggest that, taken together, seamounts encompass about 28.8 million square kilometers of the Earth's surface. That's larger than deserts, tundra, or any other single land-based global habitat on the planet.





El Chupanibre said:


> So someone correct me if I'm wrong, the big bang theory describes the inflation of spacetime itself, not the movement of matter in the sense that we'd typically associate with an "explosion"?


Yes, that's exactly the presumption. That there was a point in time, where time did not exist, nor did space, and God, using Magic, created the heavens and the earths in seven days.










http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître



> Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 - 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Université catholique de Louvain.[1] He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe.














> Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable"[12] ("Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.")


http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html



> In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of *creation* to which I have ever listened."


----------



## beli mawr

MrKappa said:


> Huh? So basically what you are saying is the Quasars are blasting away from us at speeds that break the speed of light? Or are you suggesting they are hurling towards us and total annihilation is near?
> 
> Doppler... is when waves coalesce over top of each other. When the object creating a wave, is moving faster than the waves themselves.
> 
> Breaking the speed of sound barrier. Mach one, and so on.
> 
> You could say that a race car going around a track has a Doppler effect, but lets be real, it's only getting closer/louder, and the race cars movement is constant.


Say what? It is *NOT* solely when the object is moving faster than the waves it produces. It is any time the object is in motion *relative to the observer*.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/doppler.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/doppler-effect2.htm

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/The-Doppler-Effect

"The Doppler effect is of intense interest to astronomers who use the information about the shift in frequency of electromagnetic waves produced by moving stars in our galaxy and beyond in order to derive information about those stars and galaxies."


----------



## MrKappa

Yeah, but they're saying the fabric of space time itself is expanding.

That's not really doppler.

That's refraction.

La da da... so I go and look it up... and low and behold... bang on... no big bang...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction



> Refraction is the change in direction of a wave due to a change in its transmission medium.


Elementary my dear Watson... elementary...

I never listened to this yet, but now I think I will...






I can meet you halfway... maybe quasars are the gravitational dipoles we've been searching for?

Man, that Pink Floyd... I'm sure it was revolutionary for the time, but no way I am getting through that one...


----------



## beli mawr

MrKappa said:


> Yeah, but they're saying the fabric of space time itself is expanding.
> 
> That's not really doppler.
> 
> That's refraction.


I wasn't addressing expansion, but the fact you referred to redshift as a property of distance, which it is not. We use it to estimate an object's distance.


----------



## MrKappa

beli mawr said:


> I wasn't addressing expansion


Yeah, in the first link you pointed towards, regarding doppler, they were.



beli mawr said:


> but the fact you referred to redshift as a property of distance, which it is not.


No... I've been saying the exact opposite. That redshift is possibly NOT a property of distance. That's been my whole argument all along... I specifically said...



> I am simply calling into question the properties of redshifts themselves, and questioning whether or not redshift is a property of distance, alone.


What do you think of this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis



> The Dirac large numbers hypothesis (LNH) is an observation made by Paul Dirac in 1937 relating ratios of size scales in the Universe to that of force scales. The ratios constitute very large, dimensionless numbers: some 40 orders of magnitude in the present cosmological epoch. According to Dirac's hypothesis, the apparent equivalence of these ratios might not be a mere coincidence but instead could imply a cosmology with these unusual features:


Makes me wonder if there is a repetition of forces on a scalar field of sorts. Or is that a "potential"? What is it?

Weak Nuclear
Strong Nuclear
Electro Magnetic
Gravitational


----------



## beli mawr

MrKappa said:


> No... I've been saying the exact opposite. That redshift is possibly NOT a property of distance. That's been my whole argument all along... I specifically said...
> 
> Quote:
> I am simply calling into question the properties of redshifts themselves, and questioning whether or not redshift is a property of distance, alone.


No paper I can find says that it _is_ a property of distance, but rather it is used to calculate (or maybe better, estimate) such. So to question whether it is or not is pointless.

Anyway I'll just leave this as a misunderstanding, it's truly best not to keep going on.


----------



## MrKappa

Okay fine! Doppler makes Redshift! Makes Universe go Big Bang!

Hey you guys!


----------



## HelpfulHero

El Chupanibre said:


> So someone correct me if I'm wrong, the big bang theory describes the inflation of spacetime itself, not the movement of matter in the sense that we'd typically associate with an "explosion"?


Hmm... In the sense that you mean Yes, you are correct however _if you wanted to be technical_ inflatons and fields may have played a role but in standard big bang cosmology particles do not form until the symmetry between the strong and weak force break in the electroweak epoch, but there may have been some overlap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Very_early_universe


----------



## HelpfulHero

MrKappa said:


> Okay fine! Doppler makes Redshift! Makes Universe go Big Bang!
> 
> Hey you guys!


http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/willful-ignorance


----------



## MrKappa

I knew if I threw in a little humor, your own ignorance would lead way into wonderful strains of mass ignorance.

Doppler is when waves coalesce over each other. When the object creating the waves is moving faster than where the waves arrive. It is not a property of space-time distance. You cannot apply the attribute of distance, which is a property of space-time to light, and expect to be able to measure distance or speed.

Refraction through a medium. That's redshift.

Take into consideration that gravity itself bends the fabric of space time, and you absolutely cannot measure the distance of an object, should gravity itself refract light, through space time.

The expansion of space time, is entirely irrelevant. If the expansion of space time were solely responsible for redshifts and blue shifts, then Quasars would be impossibilities, within the proposed hypothesis called the Big Bang/Inflation. Please read the entire thread as to where this argument has been fully covered.

I cannot make this any more clearer.

Unless you want me to get into math, and I highly doubt that is going to fly well with people who cannot "maths" but rather rely on the priesthood.

Please for the love of God... read up on Doppler, and understand immediately how objects moving directly away from us, due to your proposed theories of an expanding universe will not shift frequencies, nor will electromagnetic waves arrive at us at different times due to the speed of moving objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

The fabric of space time itself, is not expanding, there was no inflation, there is only a very infinite universe, and those who think everything instantaneously burst from a singularity moment have gone 100% crazy.

Michelson Morley should be your very first evidence that there is no aether, and no medium for light to shift frequencies through.

It is strictly gravitational lensing effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens



> A gravitational lens refers to a distribution of plates (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. This effect is known as gravitational lensing and is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.


What happens decades after Einstein eloquently states, that all things are relative? We mash the fabric of space time itself with gravity and slap his face on the idea. Total embarrassment.

Sometimes I honestly think that Russia sent over academic spies over into the USA during the cold war, just to flub the next generation of educated types. I wish I could speak Russian, if only it could give me a look into the culture, so that I could say without a doubt that they do not cling onto such a ridiculous concept.

Let's put this in simple terms. The Universe is not simple. All matter did not magically pop into existence through a mechanism which is unimportant. All chemical and nuclear processes exist outside the context of the singularity moment. Everything in the Universe is in a constant state of continual recycling. Matter was not created in a singularity moment. Nor was it infinitely dense, already created, and simply inflated conveniently to fit a law of thermodynamics.

Look with your own eyes out into the Universe, and see the evolution of space time, the evolution of planets, the various states of the Universe frozen in time, same as any archaeologist, and NEVER allow the Big Bang to distort your views.

Once you drop the Big Bang, everything starts to make sense. Trust me.

See... here are some truly revolutionary thinkers.

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/pdf/0706.2885.pdf



> This model describes an alternate explanation for cosmological redshift and
> the supposed relationship between radial velocity and distance. The wavelength
> shifts observed are postulated to occur not from a Doppler eﬀect, but rather
> from an overall, variable index of refraction for an inﬁnite steady-state universe.
> The time delay from interactions with particles in the IGM account for the "tired
> light" aspect of this model, as well as the redshift. The variability of the IGM's
> particle density accounts for variability of the refractive index and, consequently,
> the increase of redshift value with respect to distance. The full consequences
> and additional ideas for such a "steady-state revival" will be discussed at length
> in future papers


Why bother? right? What difference should it make if redshift is doppler or if it is a refraction?

I can immediately begin to suggest that it means that objects seemingly millions of light years away, may be within reach of human travel.

We haven't even gotten anything outside of the heliosphere yet, and already everyone is calling judge jury and executioner, on the age, size and distances of objects in the entire Universe.

This stuff is real. This is the truly interesting stuff about science and technology.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html



> The propulsion of choice for science fiction writers has become the propulsion of choice for scientists and engineers at NASA. The ion propulsion system's efficient use of fuel and electrical power enable modern spacecraft to travel farther, faster, and cheaper than any other propulsion technology currently available. Ion thrusters are currently used for stationkeeping on communication satellites and for main propulsion on deep space probes. Ion thrusters expel ions to create thrust and can provide higher spacecraft top speeds than any other rocket currently available.


I'll probably never be alive to see people break the speed of light, but it will probably happen if we can undo this ridiculous kludge, and make no mistake, the big bang is the biggest kludge ever.


----------



## beli mawr

Oops... double post somehow.


----------



## beli mawr

MrKappa said:


> I knew if I threw in a little humor, your own ignorance would lead way into wonderful strains of mass ignorance.
> 
> Doppler is when waves coalesce over each other. When the object creating the waves is moving faster than where the waves arrive. It is not a property of space-time distance. You cannot apply the attribute of distance, which is a property of space-time to light, and expect to be able to measure distance or speed.
> 
> Refraction through a medium. That's redshift.


You apparently didn't even read the *full* wiki page you linked (or even venture outside wikipedia).

"The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves such as light is of great use in astronomy and results in either a so-called redshift or blueshift. It has been used to measure the speed at which stars and galaxies are approaching or receding from us, that is, the radial velocity. This is used to detect if an apparently single star is, in reality, a close binary and even to measure the rotational speed of stars and galaxies."

We're not applying the attribute of distance to light as you claim. We're using the apparent change in the wavelength to calculate/estimate the distance to _the object emitting the light_.

Refraction is the change in the direction of a wave, however its observed frequency and amplitude remain the same. The Doppler effect describes the "observed" change in frequency.

Also, present on that wikipedia page are several diagrams demonstrating the Doppler effect, of which only one where the speed of the object exceeds the speed of the waves produced. Which yes, is the Doppler effect as well, but not the only case.


----------



## MrKappa

Defender of the Orthodoxy!

Your mindless rhetoric is well noted!



> "The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves such as light is of great use in astronomy and results in either a so-called redshift or blueshift. It has been used to measure the speed at which stars and galaxies are approaching or receding from us, that is, the radial velocity. This is used to detect if an apparently single star is, in reality, a close binary and even to measure the rotational speed of stars and galaxies."


No citation, prove it...

Valuable tool, my ***... let me break out my cosmological inflationary sextant, from within my lunar rover, so that I may coordinate where I am.

Oh look! I'm dead smack in the middle of the Universe. A consequence of the singularity moment.

I see plenty of people who are discussing alternative possibilities. You are not one of them.



> The Doppler effect describes the "observed" change in frequency.


So basically you are saying that as the universe expands, so does light. Electromagnetic energy is stretchy.

OMFG... That is full retard.

That doesn't even happen with Doppler as it was originally observed as sound waves.

Please do not go grabbing stuff that is perfectly good science and mess it up like a Sheldon.










http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html



> *Physicists Slow Speed of Light*
> 
> Light, which normally travels the 240,000 miles from the Moon to Earth in less than two seconds, has been slowed to the speed of a minivan in rush-hour traffic -- 38 miles an hour.
> 
> An entirely new state of matter, first observed four years ago, has made this possible. When atoms become packed super-closely together at super-low temperatures and super-high vacuum, they lose their identity as individual particles and act like a single super- atom with characteristics similar to a laser.


BTW, there are plenty of things the wiki doesn't discuss. Take for example the collapse of the Roman Empire along the west and the different slave politics involved in those areas.

How many years of life do you believe it cost to make a single silver coin?


----------



## beli mawr

MrKappa said:


> Defender of the Orthodoxy!
> 
> Your mindless rhetoric is well noted!
> 
> No citation, prove it...


The WikiPedia page that you yourself posted. BTW, there's better resources out there than WikiPedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect



> So basically you are saying that as the universe expands, so does light. Electromagnetic energy is stretchy.


Objects move as a result of the expansion. The objects themselves are not expanding. They are moving further away at a certain speed, and this speed is reflected in the shift of the observed frequency of the emitted light.



> That doesn't even happen with Doppler as it was originally observed as sound waves.


Yes, it was originally observed using sound waves. It was later observed true for all forms of Electro-Magnetic radiation, as shown in previously posted links.



> I see plenty of people who are discussing alternative possibilities. You are not one of them.


I never claimed I was. I just pointed out your lack of "understanding" of a concept.

As such, I leave this, as it's no longer relevant to the topic of the thread and this back and forth gone on long enough and no where. Facts are what they are, and if one party or another chooses not to acknowledge them, it becomes as pointless as questioning whether redshift is a property of distance.


----------



## MrKappa

Well, go ahead, tell me where it says that doppler is a measure of space time distance.

See, this is where I sniff out defenders of the Orthodoxy from those who have a true fundamental grasp of the world that surrounds them.



> It was later observed true for all forms of Electro-Magnetic radiation, as shown in previously posted links.


By whom? At what point in history? Where is the experiment which proves this electromagnetic/space-time expansion/doppler phenomenon?

Or is this in truth, supposition based on your belief system?

Hubble made no claims about redshift being a proof of space time distance. He simply observed the effect, and everyone else ran with it. He most certainly never claimed it was a doppler effect.

Show me the proof.

I already did my history research on this one, years and years ago. I've been less than a defender of the Orthodoxy ever since.


----------



## HelpfulHero

you are beyond hope, but for the benefit of others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

also you haven't explained why redshift increases with distance


----------



## MrKappa

My mind is blown... I already stated all that stuff ten times over. Start learning instead of arguing.

Did you guys know that electrical engineers call an electrical current a corona? Sure sure... I know... it's a beer, but it's also a part of the sun...


----------

