A Really Big Bang?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
can we not estimate what the rate of change of curvature currently is, by trying to determine the rate of contraction (if any) of the galaxies and see if it predicts an event horizon of 10 billion light years.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I'm assuming here that there's negligble velocity component; it's all gravitational red-shifting. To put some numbers on it, we need the landscape to be stretched by one lightyear per year. If the event horizon is 10 billion light years away, then we require a stretching of space by 1 part in 10 billion. With all these quasars and "black holes" out there, that shouldn't be too difficult. Or is it?


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

spaceman

you seem to have a big bang perspective on the universe, assuming that there is "black holes" out there.i for one do not.i find that there has been confusion between rotation and a vortex.they are not the same thing.a vortex develops either at the top or the bottom of a mass,and also because there is a mass that is causing this vortex,the vortex can't develop a "hole" the mass won't allow it.

rotation on the other hand can only develop parallel to X,y,Z center of the mass and this where they say these black holes are,since this is not possible there must be another explaination.notice also that the rings around uranus,saturn,neptune are all located around the center of them.same with the milkyway look at it edge on what do you see?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
you seem to have a big bang perspective on the universe, assuming that there is "black holes" out there.i for one do not.i find that...
rotation on the other hand...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I guess I shouldn't have used BB word or the BH word. For the record, I don't believe in either. I do think you can have a "brown hole" with a near singularity on the surface, NOT the centre, but that's another story. The point I was trying to make is that our observable universe has an event horizon. And its caused by something. I'm suggesting its gravitational bending. If so, what's causing the bending (or stretching if you don't like 4 dimensions).A diffuse gas condensing into galaxies is one possible explanation.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I guess I shouldn't have used BB word or the BH word. For the record, I don't believe in either. I do think you can have a "brown hole" with a near singularity on the surface, NOT the centre, but that's another story. The point I was trying to make is that our observable universe has an event horizon. And its caused by something. I'm suggesting its gravitational bending. If so, what's causing the bending (or stretching if you don't like 4 dimensions).A diffuse gas condensing into galaxies is one possible explanation.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

spaceman i am not quite sure what you mean by the universe has an observable event horizon, could you explain? do you mean that we can only see so far into it?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
spaceman i am not quite sure what you mean by the universe has an observable event horizon, could you explain? do you mean that we can only see so far into it?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
What I'm referring to is the increased red shift, as we look further into space. We can only see about 10 bil lr, and then it fades to black.That's the event horizon. If the space between us and some distant star is expanding by more than 1 lightyear per year (and that not much stretching if the consider the distance is already 10 Bil lr)then it's light can't reach us. It simply can't keep up with the expansion.
Think of the space a wavy line. If the space becomes wavier (due to gravitational peaks and valleys) then the distance from a to b increases.
What I'm trying to figure out is what's causing this expansion?

What I'm referring to is the increased red shift, as we look further into space. We can only see about 10 bil lr, and then it fades to black.That's the event horizon. If the space between us and some distant star is expanding by more than 1 lightyear per year (and that not much stretching if the consider the distance is already 10 Bil lr)then it's light can't reach us. It simply can't keep up with the expansion.
Think of the space a wavy line. If the space becomes wavier (due to gravitational peaks and valleys) then the distance from a to b increases.
What I'm trying to figure out is what's causing this expansion?


[/quote]

spaceman

you say that you do not believe in the big bang but the red shift problem you put forward is big bang based!

but i think i get the question anyway.i think this has more to do with the limits of our telescopes to gather light. notice that the hubble telescope has seen farther into the universe than any other telescope has.so the better the light gathering ability the farther we will see,by the way i don't think the universe is expanding at all.

i don't know if you have read any alternate theories of cosmology,but for example HALTON ARP has collected very good evidence that what is causing the red shift we see is the creation of matter,the younger the matter the higher the red shift!(the book is called "SEEING RED").

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
HALTON ARP "SEEING RED"
the creation of matter,the younger the matter the higher the red shift
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Yes, I do need to read "Seeing Red" as well as Dark Matter" very soon if I intend to make any informative input. I did read the reviews. I don't think he say matter is created though. It's simply spewed out from a parent galaxy. I believe in all the main tenets; no rabbits out of a hat, infinte time and space, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
the red shift problem you put forward is big bang based!
i don't think the universe is expanding at all.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I think our LOCAL region of spacetime* is CURRENTLY undergoing increased time curvature*. But I recognize that their could be other explanations. I think it's local and it's temporary. Whereas the BB says there is nothing past the event horizon and also extrapolates this curving backwards in time till there's nothing left. NO wait, they actually DO claim the space shrinks. I'm saying it doesn't do anything, only time is affected**. How temporary? I haven't a clue. Maybe 1 mil yrs. Maybe 100 Bil. I think ARP's red-shifted galaxy sprouts might help me there. They also will create a rapid change to the landscape as they condense, which supports my argument.

*when I say "time curvature" and "spacetime", bear with me. I do see now that nothing happens to the space. It's simply the light slowing down and refracting in the gravitational fields. But this DOES cause gravitational red-shift which CAN create an event horizon.)

** Look again at my Time is Round? argument. The BB is fundamentally different from my view.