Something Is Wrong, and It’s Not the Universe

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I still remember you talking about your telescope and camera which led to others describing their telescope and camera setup. It seemed theirs were bigger than yours and suddenly you stopped talking.

Hmm, no, youre confused. That wasnt me.

I am not interested in your regurgitated YEC nonsense that you don't even understand. Go peddle it to that other idiot up there ^^

 

[Weatherman2020]

Fact remains, we know very little about the universe,

Neat!

But we do know a few things, including that space is expanding. I hope you learned something from my analogy.

I could care less what the universe is or is not doing. It’s irrelevant to everything.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I could care less what the universe is or is not doing.

Yet you started this thread and felt compelled to comment on my post describing what the universe is doing. Obviously you do care.

You have the lying skills of a toddler.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I could care less what the universe is or is not doing.

Yet you started this thread and felt compelled to comment on my post describing what the universe is doing. Obviously you do care.

You have the lying skills of a toddler.

The same with manmade climate change. To mock you know it alls.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I could care less what the universe is or is not doing.

Yet you started this thread and felt compelled to comment on my post describing what the universe is doing. Obviously you do care.

You have the lying skills of a toddler.

The same with manmade climate change. To mock you know it alls.

Haha, good for you.

 

[Vastator]

The sound of settled science strikes again.

We’re getting something wrong about the universe.

It might be something small: a measurement issue that makes certain stars looks closer or farther away than they are, something astrophysicists could fix with a few tweaks to how they measure distances across space. It might be something big: an error — or series of errors — in cosmology, or our understanding of the universe’s origin and evolution. If that’s the case, our entire history of space and time may be messed up. But whatever the issue is, it’s making key observations of the universe disagree with each other: Measured one way, the universe appears to be expanding at a certain rate; measured another way, the universe appears to be expanding at a different rate. And, as a new paper shows, those discrepancies have gotten larger in recent years, even as the measurements have gotten more precise.

“We think that if our understanding of cosmology is correct, then all of these different measurements should be giving us the same answer,” said Katie Mack, a theoretical cosmologist at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and co-author of the new paper.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.

Science Is never settled.... Thread fail.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis .

 

[westwall]

They would never pass at right angles to each other

False. Every single night a planet moving about the Sun is moving perpendicular to the Sun's velocity relative to some object in the universe.

But, I should stop stringing you along. You are making a huge, fundamental error. While you are wrong even within the incorrect model you have constructed for the sake of discussion, your entire diatribe is, in fact, nonsensical. There is no "direction of explosion". One cannot point in a specific direction and say they are pointing to the origin point of the explosion. That is not how the expansion of space works. There is no "center" of our universe.

That's because they are in ORBIT. Please explain how a rock can travel perpendicular to another rock when there are no orbital mechanics extant.

You keep thinking in terms of a Universe already created, I am not. I am talking about the Universe at the time of creation.

 

[OldBiologist]

The sound of settled science strikes again.

We’re getting something wrong about the universe.

It might be something small: a measurement issue that makes certain stars looks closer or farther away than they are, something astrophysicists could fix with a few tweaks to how they measure distances across space. It might be something big: an error — or series of errors — in cosmology, or our understanding of the universe’s origin and evolution. If that’s the case, our entire history of space and time may be messed up. But whatever the issue is, it’s making key observations of the universe disagree with each other: Measured one way, the universe appears to be expanding at a certain rate; measured another way, the universe appears to be expanding at a different rate. And, as a new paper shows, those discrepancies have gotten larger in recent years, even as the measurements have gotten more precise.

“We think that if our understanding of cosmology is correct, then all of these different measurements should be giving us the same answer,” said Katie Mack, a theoretical cosmologist at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and co-author of the new paper.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.

I'm not going to argue religion or not, but the fundamental theory of the Universe has always bothered me. I think it is far older than cosmologists currently think it is, and i have a problem with the big bang as a whole. If the Universe originated from a singularity, how can galaxies collide? How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?

I find this very easy to envision. Galaxies were not formed in the initial Big Bang, they formed afterwards as clumps matter condensed. It is visible everywhere we look that we see spiraling concentrations of matter, whether it’s solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, whatever. As these gigantic clumps spiral around themselves and each other, much matter gets spun off in slingshot effects. In our own solar system we see asteroids on eccentric orbits, having those orbits changed by chance encounters with other gravitational masses. We see asteroids that originate from outside our solar system. We see galaxies colliding and gravitationally influencing each other in the same manner, just at enormously greater scales. It is a vector nightmare out there. And all of these things are occurring in an expanding universe.

 

[james bond]

...yes, you would eventually see a rock moving at 90 degrees to the direction of the blast, due to gravity

Not in outer space you idiot.

 

[james bond]

I still remember you talking about your telescope and camera which led to others describing their telescope and camera setup. It seemed theirs were bigger than yours and suddenly you stopped talking.

Hmm, no, youre confused. That wasnt me.

I am not interested in your regurgitated YEC nonsense that you don't even understand. Go peddle it to that other idiot up there ^^

+

 

[westwall]

The sound of settled science strikes again.

We’re getting something wrong about the universe.

It might be something small: a measurement issue that makes certain stars looks closer or farther away than they are, something astrophysicists could fix with a few tweaks to how they measure distances across space. It might be something big: an error — or series of errors — in cosmology, or our understanding of the universe’s origin and evolution. If that’s the case, our entire history of space and time may be messed up. But whatever the issue is, it’s making key observations of the universe disagree with each other: Measured one way, the universe appears to be expanding at a certain rate; measured another way, the universe appears to be expanding at a different rate. And, as a new paper shows, those discrepancies have gotten larger in recent years, even as the measurements have gotten more precise.

“We think that if our understanding of cosmology is correct, then all of these different measurements should be giving us the same answer,” said Katie Mack, a theoretical cosmologist at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and co-author of the new paper.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.

I'm not going to argue religion or not, but the fundamental theory of the Universe has always bothered me. I think it is far older than cosmologists currently think it is, and i have a problem with the big bang as a whole. If the Universe originated from a singularity, how can galaxies collide? How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?

I find this very easy to envision. Galaxies were not formed in the initial Big Bang, they formed afterwards as clumps matter condensed. It is visible everywhere we look that we see spiraling concentrations of matter, whether it’s solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, whatever. As these gigantic clumps spiral around themselves and each other, much matter gets spun off in slingshot effects. In our own solar system we see asteroids on eccentric orbits, having those orbits changed by chance encounters with other gravitational masses. We see asteroids that originate from outside our solar system. We see galaxies colliding and gravitationally influencing each other in the same manner, just at enormously greater scales. It is a vector nightmare out there. And all of these things are occurring in an expanding universe.

That is the current theory, but it had to take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years before the galaxies formed. All that time matter is speeding away from the point of origin. In all directions.

Now, if the Universe is far older than we think, and it didn't expand as rapidly as is claimed, then as tha galaxies coalesced and bounced off the edges of the slowly expanding Universe, that would explain the changes in relative motion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's because they are in ORBIT

Which is just acceleration due to gravity. That is the ONLY "orbital mechanism", so your choice of this cryptic description of it is odd. Same as when an interstellar object enters our solar system, changes direction, and exits, due to the gravity of the Sun. Is this object in orbit? No. Has gravity changed its velocity? Yes.

Really, your question should be (and is, essentially) to ask why there are galaxies at all. The same force (gravity) that causes them to exert forces on each other is the force that formed them in the first place.

And that is an interesting question: Why isn't the universe perfectly uniform? Scientists have a working explanation: quantum fluctuations in the early universe.

And again: "perpendicular" is just a result of frame of reference. There is no "direction of explosion" to use as the frame of reference. So there are no objects in the universe moving perpendicularly to the "direction of explosion" or "of expansion". Because that "direction" simply does not exist in our three spatial dimensions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not in outer space

Yes, gravity still works in outer space.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All that time matter is speeding away from the point of origin.

That is not how the expansion of space works.

In the balloon analogy: where is the "point of origin" in the 2D space? There isn't one. Space itself is expanding in all directions.

 

[toobfreak]

The sound of settled science strikes again.

We’re getting something wrong about the universe.

It might be something small: a measurement issue that makes certain stars looks closer or farther away than they are, something astrophysicists could fix with a few tweaks to how they measure distances across space. It might be something big: an error — or series of errors — in cosmology, or our understanding of the universe’s origin and evolution. If that’s the case, our entire history of space and time may be messed up. But whatever the issue is, it’s making key observations of the universe disagree with each other: Measured one way, the universe appears to be expanding at a certain rate; measured another way, the universe appears to be expanding at a different rate. And, as a new paper shows, those discrepancies have gotten larger in recent years, even as the measurements have gotten more precise.

“We think that if our understanding of cosmology is correct, then all of these different measurements should be giving us the same answer,” said Katie Mack, a theoretical cosmologist at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and co-author of the new paper.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.

@moderators

Please move to religion section or rubber room

idiot

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Back to the balloon analogy:

Lets add some detail. Zoom in close enough to the balloon that the surface appears virtually flat. Draw the tiny dots on the balloon and inflate it. While it can be said that there is no "center" of this 2D space (essentially, a plane), an easier way to think of it may be to say that EVERY point on the balloon is at the center of the universe, from its frame of reference.

Choose any dot on the balloon, and draw a circle centered on it. This circle represents the "horizon", or the edge of the observable universe from the frame of the dot at the center. While this horizon is receding from the dot and increasing in radius at the speed of light, the dots located on this circle are actually receding from the dot at the center at a speed FASTER than the speed of light, due to expansion.

Eventually, the far away galaxies will start to "wink out" one by one. And we will be looking at an empty sky, save for galaxies in our local group.

Eventually, those galaxies will "wink out", too. And we will be looking at a sky with no major galaxies, save for our own Milky Way.

What will scientists in that era think of our universe? A watershed moment in cosmology (and in philosophy and in religion) was to learn that we are in one of 100s of billions of obervable galaxies. Scientists in this later era won't be able to come to this conclusion.

 

[Vastator]

The sound of settled science strikes again.

We’re getting something wrong about the universe.

It might be something small: a measurement issue that makes certain stars looks closer or farther away than they are, something astrophysicists could fix with a few tweaks to how they measure distances across space. It might be something big: an error — or series of errors — in cosmology, or our understanding of the universe’s origin and evolution. If that’s the case, our entire history of space and time may be messed up. But whatever the issue is, it’s making key observations of the universe disagree with each other: Measured one way, the universe appears to be expanding at a certain rate; measured another way, the universe appears to be expanding at a different rate. And, as a new paper shows, those discrepancies have gotten larger in recent years, even as the measurements have gotten more precise.

“We think that if our understanding of cosmology is correct, then all of these different measurements should be giving us the same answer,” said Katie Mack, a theoretical cosmologist at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and co-author of the new paper.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.

I'm not going to argue religion or not, but the fundamental theory of the Universe has always bothered me. I think it is far older than cosmologists currently think it is, and i have a problem with the big bang as a whole. If the Universe originated from a singularity, how can galaxies collide? How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?

I find this very easy to envision. Galaxies were not formed in the initial Big Bang, they formed afterwards as clumps matter condensed. It is visible everywhere we look that we see spiraling concentrations of matter, whether it’s solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, whatever. As these gigantic clumps spiral around themselves and each other, much matter gets spun off in slingshot effects. In our own solar system we see asteroids on eccentric orbits, having those orbits changed by chance encounters with other gravitational masses. We see asteroids that originate from outside our solar system. We see galaxies colliding and gravitationally influencing each other in the same manner, just at enormously greater scales. It is a vector nightmare out there. And all of these things are occurring in an expanding universe.

That is the current theory, but it had to take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years before the galaxies formed. All that time matter is speeding away from the point of origin. In all directions.

Now, if the Universe is far older than we think, and it didn't expand as rapidly as is claimed, then as tha galaxies coalesced and bounced off the edges of the slowly expanding Universe, that would explain the changes in relative motion.

But what if the “black hole” theory is correct? Perhaps our local part of the universe is falling into a black hole... that might explain why all the other systems seem to be racing away at more than light speed. What if they’re relatively static to us; but our particular region is falling toward a singularity?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The sound of settled science strikes again.

We’re getting something wrong about the universe.

It might be something small: a measurement issue that makes certain stars looks closer or farther away than they are, something astrophysicists could fix with a few tweaks to how they measure distances across space. It might be something big: an error — or series of errors — in cosmology, or our understanding of the universe’s origin and evolution. If that’s the case, our entire history of space and time may be messed up. But whatever the issue is, it’s making key observations of the universe disagree with each other: Measured one way, the universe appears to be expanding at a certain rate; measured another way, the universe appears to be expanding at a different rate. And, as a new paper shows, those discrepancies have gotten larger in recent years, even as the measurements have gotten more precise.

“We think that if our understanding of cosmology is correct, then all of these different measurements should be giving us the same answer,” said Katie Mack, a theoretical cosmologist at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and co-author of the new paper.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.

I'm not going to argue religion or not, but the fundamental theory of the Universe has always bothered me. I think it is far older than cosmologists currently think it is, and i have a problem with the big bang as a whole. If the Universe originated from a singularity, how can galaxies collide? How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?

I find this very easy to envision. Galaxies were not formed in the initial Big Bang, they formed afterwards as clumps matter condensed. It is visible everywhere we look that we see spiraling concentrations of matter, whether it’s solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, whatever. As these gigantic clumps spiral around themselves and each other, much matter gets spun off in slingshot effects. In our own solar system we see asteroids on eccentric orbits, having those orbits changed by chance encounters with other gravitational masses. We see asteroids that originate from outside our solar system. We see galaxies colliding and gravitationally influencing each other in the same manner, just at enormously greater scales. It is a vector nightmare out there. And all of these things are occurring in an expanding universe.

That is the current theory, but it had to take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years before the galaxies formed. All that time matter is speeding away from the point of origin. In all directions.

Now, if the Universe is far older than we think, and it didn't expand as rapidly as is claimed, then as tha galaxies coalesced and bounced off the edges of the slowly expanding Universe, that would explain the changes in relative motion.

But what if the “black hole” theory is correct? Perhaps our local part of the universe is falling into a black hole... that might explain why all the other systems seem to be racing away at more than light speed. What if they’re relatively static to us; but our particular region is falling toward a singularity?

Interesting...but confusing. Were we heading toward a singularity, that would still produce a clear vector of velocity, to an earthbound observer, directed at the singularity. That would produce redshift for the galaxies we observe in the direction opposite this vector, but a blue shift in the galaxies in the direction of the vector (the ones we are moving toward).

Yet everything seems to be moving away from us in every direction, in general.

Can you point me to some reading on this?

 

[westwall]

All that time matter is speeding away from the point of origin.

That is not how the expansion of space works.

In the balloon analogy: where is the "point of origin" in the 2D space? There isn't one. Space itself is expanding in all directions.

You are thinking in 2D, but you need to be thinking in 4D