Something Is Wrong, and It’s Not the Universe

[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.

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?

That could explain a lot. However we see galaxies collide throughout the Universe.

 

[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?

That could explain a lot. However we see galaxies collide throughout the Universe.

Not sure that the collision of galaxies eliminates the local collapse theory. Galaxies apparently collide. My thought was merely; rather than assume everything was “racing away from us”... what if it were us racing away from it? We know things get weird when it comes to black holes. And the only things that seem to move faster than light speed, througH a vacuum are black hole related...
I just wonder if we may have this backwards. Maybe it’s not them. Maybe it’s us...?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.

 

[westwall]

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

You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.

No, I am thinking in 4D

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.

No, I am thinking in 4D

False. When you spoke of things not moving perpendicular to the direction of explosion, you were thinking in 3D.

In doing so, you made a fundamental error in your understanding of how inflation works, and I gave you the tools to understand. The error you made is common. Because this concept (inflation of space) is not intuitive.

 

[westwall]

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?

That could explain a lot. However we see galaxies collide throughout the Universe.

Not sure that the collision of galaxies eliminates the local collapse theory. Galaxies apparently collide. My thought was merely; rather than assume everything was “racing away from us”... what if it were us racing away from it? We know things get weird when it comes to black holes. And the only things that seem to move faster than light speed, througH a vacuum are black hole related...
I just wonder if we may have this backwards. Maybe it’s not them. Maybe it’s us...?

I am merely going by current theory which dictates that everything had to be going away from ever

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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 change 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?

That could explain a lot. However we see galaxies collide throughout the Universe.

Not sure that the collision of galaxies eliminates the local collapse theory. Galaxies apparently collide. My thought was merely; rather than assume everything was “racing away from us”... what if it were us racing away from it? We know things get weird when it comes to black holes. And the only things that seem to move faster than light speed, througH a vacuum are black hole related...
I just wonder if we may have this backwards. Maybe it’s not them. Maybe it’s us...?

Can you explain how such a scenario would cause everything else , in every direction, to appear to be moving away from us?

 

[westwall]

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

You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.

No, I am thinking in 4D

False. When you spoke of things not moving perpendicular to the direction of explosion, you were thinking in 3D.

In doing so, you made a fundamental error in your understanding of how inflation works, and I gave you the tools to understand. The error you made is common. Because this concept (inflation of space) is not intuitive.

You have to add the element of time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.

No, I am thinking in 4D

False. When you spoke of things not moving perpendicular to the direction of explosion, you were thinking in 3D.

In doing so, you made a fundamental error in your understanding of how inflation works, and I gave you the tools to understand. The error you made is common. Because this concept (inflation of space) is not intuitive.

You have to add the element of time.

The element of time had nothing to do with your comments. Nor are you explaining how it did, or how that affects your comments or my explanation. So what are you getting at?

 

[westwall]

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

You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.

No, I am thinking in 4D

False. When you spoke of things not moving perpendicular to the direction of explosion, you were thinking in 3D.

In doing so, you made a fundamental error in your understanding of how inflation works, and I gave you the tools to understand. The error you made is common. Because this concept (inflation of space) is not intuitive.

You have to add the element of time.

The element of time had nothing to do with your comments. Nor are you explaining how it did, or how that affects your comments or my explanation. So what are you getting at?

Yes, it does. If the big bang theory is correct, there is a 300,000 year period where the calculations break down. We don't have a clue what happened at that time. In my opinion it is that period where the angular motion occured.

The question is why. Time has everything to with that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the big bang theory is correct, there is a 300,000 year period where the calculations break down. We don't have a clue what happened at that time. In my opinion it is that period where the angular motion occured.

That doesn't make sense. There is no "angular motion", because there is no "direction of expansion" or "of explosion". Angular motion depends on a frame of reference. the frame of reference you are implying simply does not exist.

Furthermore, your point was regarding perpendicular motion, not angular motion, relative to the imaginary "direction of explosion". Unfortunately, that also does not exist, for the same reason.

 

[westwall]

If the big bang theory is correct, there is a 300,000 year period where the calculations break down. We don't have a clue what happened at that time. In my opinion it is that period where the angular motion occured.

That doesn't make sense. There is no "angular motion", because there is no "direction of expansion" or "of explosion". Angular motion depends on a frame of reference. the frame of reference you are implying simply does not exist.

Furthermore, your point was regarding perpendicular motion, not angular motion, relative to the imaginary "direction of explosion". Unfortunately, that also does not exist, for the same reason.

Take a look at videos of explosions. Try and spot any debris moving in a direction away from the blast direction.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Take a look at videos of explosions. Try and spot any debris moving in a direction away from the blast direction.

You are making a fundamental error: there is no "blast direction" from the big bang in space. I am trying to help you understand this.No objects in space can be said to be moving in a different directionthan the "blast direction", because the "blast direction" of the Big Bang does not exist.

 

[Crepitus]

How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?

Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same.

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.

I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.

That's because you've never seen an explosion last long enough for gravity to be a factor.

 

[westwall]

How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?

Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same.

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.

I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.

That's because you've never seen an explosion last long enough for gravity to be a factor.

There was no gravity at the time of the big bang

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?

Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same.

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.

I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.

That's because you've never seen an explosion last long enough for gravity to be a factor.

But again, the entire line of reasoning is nonsensical.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fundamental error being made here is a result of intuition failing us. Our space doesn't "expand into" anything. That is very hard for us to understand.

You cannot trace the big bang back to a point in our space. You cannot pick an object and say it is moving in the "blast direction", then trace its history back to the "location" of the big bang.

 

[james bond]

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

You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.

You are an idiot. The 2D balloon analogy is suppose to help us think in 3D . Maybe you should let someone else explain

"The problem with the balloon analogy is that it's a two-dimensional analogy for a three-dimensional situation. The way you're supposed to think about the balloon analogy is that everything which happens in two dimensions on the balloon's surface actually happens in three dimensions in the universe. For example, the balloon's surface "stretches" proportionally in TWO directions as the balloon gets blown up, but our universe stretches proportionally in THREE directions. The third dimension in the balloon analogy (i.e. the direction which is perpendicular to the balloon's surface and which allows us to see the balloon's curvature) is the equivalent of the FOURTH dimension in our universe."

Is the universe really like an expanding balloon? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The 2D balloon analogy is suppose to help us think in 3D

Correct. And it is a perfect illustration of a few of these principles. Reducing the dimensions allows our limited minds to grasp the concepts of expanding space, and that there is no "center" of the universe, and how the cosmic horizon works.

Your error is to think I am comparing the expanding universe to a balloon shape expanding into space. That is not what my analogy does.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

You are thinking in 3D. And there is no "direction of explosion" in our 3 spatial dimensions.

You think there’s only 3 dimensions.