In what direction is the universe expanding?

[Parra]

But, if everything is expanding outwards from each each other, if you hit rewind then all mass would be getting closer to each other, and given enough time, end up all together in one location.

That's the big chill vs big crush. As far as we know it will keep expanding forever. Local gravity still has an effect, I suppose locally things get together while universally they get further apart.

 

[Parra]

@Parra buddy cant just wander into the thread and make the claim about the Big Bang starting everywhere at once….and then waltz off like nothing has happened!

I smell a rat.

Well there isn't anywhere else

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Well there isn't anywhere else

That’s an assertion that doesn’t quite explain it.

Anyway, I think my processed cheese appearing from another universe while not likely, is something.

Chemical reactions to occur perhaps.

 

[Knight76]

That's the big chill vs big crush. As far as we know it will keep expanding forever. Local gravity still has an effect, I suppose locally things get together while universally they get further apart.

Yes but the big bang being something that happened everywhere all at once isn't the accepted theory is it?

The rewind point is that if we rewound time, given all galaxies, and clusters of galaxies are heading away from each other at the same time, therefore away from a central starting point, then how could the big bang have happened everywhere all at one.

If all everything is moving outward and away from each other, the reverse must be true if time is rewound, everything must be moving inward and getting closer to each other, to the point where it all comes back together at a spot.

At some point, there was nothing anywhere else but one place! and then the big bang happens and shit is flung every which way.

 

[Parra]

Yes but the big bang being something that happened everywhere all at once isn't the accepted theory is it?

The rewind point is that if we rewound time, given all galaxies, and clusters of galaxies are heading away from each other at the same time, therefore away from a central starting point, then how could the big bang have happened everywhere all at one.

If all everything is moving outward and away from each other, the reverse must be true if time is rewound, everything must be moving inward and getting closer to each other, to the point where it all comes back together at a spot.

At some point, there was nothing anywhere else but one place! and then the big bang happens and shit is flung every which way.

I think it is covered earlier in this thread - matter is not being flung anywhere, it is spacetime that is expanding. So things (galaxies for example) need not be moving at all - yet the distance between them increases. The big crunch is a theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_C...runch is a,universe starting with another Big . From the little bits I've read it seems that the evidence is that this is slightly inlikely, with infinite expansion more likely,

 

[mongoose]

Yes but the big bang being something that happened everywhere all at once isn't the accepted theory is it?

The rewind point is that if we rewound time, given all galaxies, and clusters of galaxies are heading away from each other at the same time, therefore away from a central starting point, then how could the big bang have happened everywhere all at one.

If all everything is moving outward and away from each other, the reverse must be true if time is rewound, everything must be moving inward and getting closer to each other, to the point where it all comes back together at a spot.

At some point, there was nothing anywhere else but one place! and then the big bang happens and shit is flung every which way.

I think humans naturally visualize the big bang as a starting point or singularity which expands outwards forever like a giant balloon but it can't have happened like that because space didn't exist before the big bang. How can a space (universe) expand out into other space that isn't there? Humans can't conceptualise there being no space and no time, therefor its virtually impossible to conceptualise the big bang happening.

 

[Knight76]

I think humans naturally visualize the big bang as a starting point or singularity which expands outwards forever like a giant balloon but it can't have happened like that because space didn't exist before the big bang. How can a space (universe) expand out into other space that isn't there? Humans can't conceptualise there being no space and no time, therefor its virtually impossible to conceptualise the big bang happening.

But they know with fairly high confidence that at some point in the past, there was either a singularity or there was a very small spot of well, stuff. Which for whatever reason rapidly expanded. Before that rapid expansion, beyond the borders of this stuff was nothing. A void.

Then the big bang occurred and space time was sent outwards rapidly, expanding the universe.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

I think humans naturally visualize the big bang as a starting point or singularity which expands outwards forever like a giant balloon but it can't have happened like that because space didn't exist before the big bang. How can a space (universe) expand out into other space that isn't there? Humans can't conceptualise there being no space and no time, therefor its virtually impossible to conceptualise the big bang happening.

Therefore, the Big Bang never happened

There can’t be nothing.

Everything is something, even vacuum.

 

[mongoose]

Therefore, the Big Bang never happened

There can’t be nothing.

Everything is something, even vacuum.

i'm not saying it didn't happen, i'm saying that whatever exists outside of space and time is not something the human brain can grasp.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

i'm not saying it didn't happen, i'm saying that whatever exists outside of space and time is not something the human brain can grasp.

I respectfully disagree because you may be assigning a quality or attribute to something we don’t know enough about.

We could well understand it if we knew what it was.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

I’m not against the Bangsters and in general, I support a lot of what I understand their case to be.

But I put the brakes on just before time starts.

 

[Parra]

I’m not against the Bangsters and in general, I support a lot of what I understand their case to be.

But I put the brakes on just before time starts.

What about space? You can't separate the two.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

What about space? You can't separate the two.

Yes, your point is well made.

Im not sure what to do with time.

Just off topic a bit…


Here’s my ufo snap from last year although I still don’t believe in them.

As best guess, it was off the coast of Sydney travelling in a southerly direction late one night.

And it wasn’t going too fast for a little while, but then it disappeared.

It could be a satellite or something, but strange colour, teal orby glob.

Just out of shot, upper left is the moon.

@Timmah and the other professional visual artists on the forum can do their thing and conclude the photo hasn’t been doctored. I’m not that proficient. Can barely use a crayon!

 

[Generalzod]

First picture I took with my 12 year Nikon dslr camera D3000 exposure time of 30seconds This is my first shot through my telescopre:

1second exposure:

 

[SpaceMonkey]

I’m not against the Bangsters and in general, I support a lot of what I understand their case to be.

But I put the brakes on just before time starts.

An important thing about the Big Bang is that the theory does not claim to know what caused the Big Bang or what (if anything) there was before the singularity - there’s a point very early on the the expansion of the universe that’s the limit of how early we can know what the universe was like- before that just isn’t something we can have knowledge on because all the physical laws of the universe break down under those conditions. We simply don’t know

 

[Generalzod]

Mind-Bending Study Suggests Time Did Actually Exist Before The Big Bang

According to a straightforward interpretation of general relativity, the Big Bang wasn't the start of 'everything'.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

An important thing about the Big Bang is that the theory does not claim to know what caused the Big Bang or what (if anything) there was before the singularity - there’s a point very early on the the expansion of the universe that’s the limit of how early we can know what the universe was like- before that just isn’t something we can have knowledge on because all the physical laws of the universe break down under those conditions. We simply don’t know

Well if the net result is “ we simply don’t know” then that’s not too different from religion I guess.

But the Cassini specialist was talking about the value of exploration. She says Mars is fine but there’s not too much there. She makes a good point that politics and romance can interfere with solid science. We are better off chucking everything into Saturns Moons etc.

I always find it incredible that we can identify substances found on other planets. We have the same stuff here on earth. That’s interesting.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Well if the net result is “ we simply don’t know” then that’s not too different from religion I guess.

But the Cassini specialist was talking about the value of exploration. She says Mars is fine but there’s not too much there. She makes a good point that politics and romance can interfere with solid science. We are better off chucking everything into Saturns Moons etc.

I always find it incredible that we can identify substances found on other planets. We have the same stuff here on earth. That’s interesting.

It’s not a complete “we don’t know”. It’s “we know this much, but we don’t claim to know everything”. That’s very different to religion which usually claims that god is eternal and created everything.

One of the most important things about science is that it openly acknowledges that there are limits to how much we know.

 

[bileduct]

This is my first shot through my telescopre:

1second exposure:

View attachment 65442

At that focal length you're going to want a EQ tracking mount.

 

[Generalzod]

At that focal length you're going to want a EQ tracking mount.

I’ve got a skywatcher ax gti which is a tracking mount and using a software called stellarmate os via reasoberry pi. Totally automated telescope, if I want to take pictures of say the Orion nebular the telescope will be guided and using the stars it will align itself to take pictures while tracking the object. But focusing is the key ..