Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 95 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
01/07/20 09:26 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
Page 7 of 20 < 1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 19 20 >
Topic Options
#33380 - 02/13/10 12:28 AM So far... [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
the sum total of Marchimedes's moving and stacking Egyptian stuff.

_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
.
#33382 - 02/13/10 01:30 AM The universes expansion acceleration, 3 images, 1 [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204




_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33429 - 02/20/10 09:08 AM This time in imageville... [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33430 - 02/22/10 01:09 AM Excuse me... [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204


If you are joking with me, it's pretty funny.

If not, well, then, you have really hurt my feelings and it's to my weeping closet for me, and then you gotta call Ma, she brings Ice Cream and the usual platitudes then it's off to therapy but what that means for you is no images for a while.

So there...
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33431 - 02/22/10 02:00 AM It's all good... [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
so how do you have it set up, I post and all goes back to normal?

it's funny, good job.

"This time in imageville..."

Classic.

You know, I'm a lead moderator on you know what site and I do stuff too. I especially like telling some moron I've banned him but it takes 24 hours to take effect so they had better post like their life depended on it.

Never let it be said that ol' March can't take that which he doles out.

I screen shotted it though.

I HAVE PROOF.


I'm liking this site more and morte as the years go by.

And the cold water freezes first, damn it.

So there.

Gimme 100k.

I have plans...
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33435 - 02/22/10 07:38 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
My bad...
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33436 - 02/22/10 09:22 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
Perhaps it's time this thread went a little closer to its initial topic. Things seem to have gone far afield.

Amaranth
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#33439 - 02/22/10 04:04 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Things seem to have gone far afield
Ah, so the universe is expanding grin

Marchi

You've been over this at least once before, Marchi, and you continue to insist that the Big Bang was a conventional kind of explosion in which matter was expelled into a pre-existing space. That is not the way of it (according to "they"). The Big Bang was the origin of all our universe including space. That space expanded, carrying the contents with it. Which helps to account for the fact that, on the large scale (strings of galaxy superclusters), the universe looks to be much the same everywhere - taking into account the fact that we look into the past.

"They who are called they" also tell that the age of the universe is estimated to be about 13.7b yrs, not the 14.5b that you keep insisting on. You might as well get it right - heaven knows what will happen to your theories if you don't grin On the other hand, what's a billion yrs between friends?

You may have discovered by now that quasars have been identified as young galaxies. They appear young because we see them as they were billions of years ago. Those quasars might now be galaxies like the Milky Way. And in those galaxies may be astronomers observing the Milky Way as it was 10 billion yrs ago - possibly as a quasar.

What lies beyond the visible universe is, obviously, unknown; but as far as I know there's no reason to believe that it's different to the visible part. If it is the same, then it seems that 'at this moment' there would be no quasars.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#33444 - 02/24/10 12:28 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: redewenur]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Things seem to have gone far afield
Ah, so the universe is expanding grin


OMG you should be ashamed of yourself.

Quote:
Marchi

You've been over this at least once before, Marchi, and you continue to insist that the Big Bang was a conventional kind of explosion in which matter was expelled into a pre-existing space. That is not the way of it (according to "they"). The Big Bang was the origin of all our universe including space.


I am never going to say that the big bang created existance itself.

Quote:
That space expanded, carrying the contents with it.


I say space is infinate, and probably was allready there. Cause space is really nothing. I can live with nothing being there already.

Quote:
Which helps to account for the fact that, on the large scale (strings of galaxy superclusters), the universe looks to be much the same everywhere - taking into account the fact that we look into the past.

"They who are called they" also tell that the age of the universe is estimated to be about 13.7b yrs, not the 14.5b that you keep insisting on.


At the time I wrote the first space theory is was 14.5 or this or that. Not until recentlyhas it been nailed down to 13.7. Do you really think I'm going to go back and edit drawings?

Quote:
You might as well get it right - heaven knows what will happen to your theories if you don't grin On the other hand, what's a billion yrs between friends?


Bah, numbers, math, don't amount to a hill of beans with my space theories. Don't need all that for my explanation.

Quote:
You may have discovered by now that quasars have been identified as young galaxies. They appear young because we see them as they were billions of years ago. Those quasars might now be galaxies like the Milky Way. And in those galaxies may be astronomers observing the Milky Way as it was 10 billion yrs ago - possibly as a quasar.


I'm fine with all that, notice I am on theory #3 right now.

Quote:
What lies beyond the visible universe is, obviously, unknown; but as far as I know there's no reason to believe that it's different to the visible part. If it is the same, then it seems that 'at this moment' there would be no quasars.


I'm fine with that also. Beyond visible space maybe be more stuff, buteventually there is just nothing, or what I call space.


Really, I'm going with at this point that the expansion is actually stopping, the interior of the matter buble is slowing down faster than the exterior becasue of te gravitaional pull of the matter on the opposite side of the buble. Our visible universe is being strectched, or the lung of the universe has finished filing and is jkust starting to exhale.

Expl;ain to me how thi idea does not mesh with all present gravitaional and physics laws and exlains all that we see withoutsome stinkin voodoo like dark energy.

See? No math.
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33445 - 02/24/10 12:37 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Perhaps it's time this thread went a little closer to its initial topic. Things seem to have gone far afield.

Amaranth


Then change the title to "I, Marchimedes, and what I think".

Or...

"Marchimedes, a man for all the ages".

Or...

"Stuff Marchimedes writes down".

Or...

"This time in imageville..." Yes, I saved that, I have a file of that, you can't deny that, I still want an explanation, matter of fact, you gonna scold me while in the same breath having fun at my expence? For shame.

Or...

"Marchimedes, the train wreck that keeps making all the stops".

See what I'm gettin at here? Maybe we should have a poll. A contest to name my thread.

Why does this even bother you?

Friggin almost at 90k views, you should be giving me awards and naming wings of this place after me.
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33448 - 02/24/10 05:18 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
I am never going to say that the big bang created existance itself.

Likewise.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Cause space is really nothing.

You find it difficult to conceive of a 'nothing' that doesn't include space? Physicists don't yet know what space is, so you call it nothing. But I suspect that its structure will be discovered.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Really, I'm going with at this point that the expansion is actually stopping

Why? Observations show the expansion of space to be accelerating.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Do you really think I'm going to go back and edit drawings?

No, but why post junk?

_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#33490 - 03/01/10 05:49 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: redewenur]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted By: redewenur
[quote=Marchimedes]I am never going to say that the big bang created existance itself.

Likewise.


So we are good there, I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Cause space is really nothing.

You find it difficult to conceive of a 'nothing' that doesn't include space? Physicists don't yet know what space is, so you call it nothing. But I suspect that its structure will be discovered.


Well, gives you sumpin to get outta bed for.

I have trouble imagining that it has ANY structure. I say it's infinate nothing with matter in it here and that is us.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Really, I'm going with at this point that the expansion is actually stopping

Why? Observations show the expansion of space to be accelerating.


From our point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Do you really think I'm going to go back and edit drawings?

No, but why post junk?


Junk? Damn, that's little harsh. Plenty of good stuff in there to make folks think. So 14.5 bilions years is still there, it affects the theory not at all. beside if I change the image, then I have to repost the image. New files, image downloads, and while I'm in there I'm bound to think of sumpin else, it will never end.

Or...

Your little site here has 90,ooo views of people reading junk.

That's a lot of stupid people.

And I'm the leader.
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33491 - 03/01/10 07:29 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
I wouldn't be that harsh. Not everything you post is junk. But if you're out to inform, then you'd do better not to knowingly misinform - and if your choice of presentation format prevents that, then you'd do better not to use it.

Your apparent assumption that the number of views of a thread is a measure of the quality of posts therein (and the I.Q of the viewers) is baseless. A person may be attracted by a topic title, yet may consider the posts to be garbage. Whatever their opinion, they become a statistic as soon as they open the thread.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Really, I'm going with at this point that the expansion is actually stopping

Originally Posted By: redewenur
Why? Observations show the expansion of space to be accelerating.

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
From our point of view

- Whose point of view did you have in mind?
- On what basis do you think their view would be different?
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#33498 - 03/02/10 04:21 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: redewenur]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
Originally Posted By: redewenur
I wouldn't be that harsh. Not everything you post is junk. But if you're out to inform, then you'd do better not to knowingly misinform - and if your choice of presentation format prevents that, then you'd do better not to use it.


Everybody always givin Ol' Marchimedes advise.

Quote:
Your apparent assumption that the number of views of a thread is a measure of the quality of posts therein (and the I.Q of the viewers) is baseless. A person may be attracted by a topic title, yet may consider the posts to be garbage. Whatever their opinion, they become a statistic as soon as they open the thread.


Fine.

Then.

I'm the greatest topic titler that has ever lived. To wit, my politics thread...



Yea, I don't know what I'm doing, maybe I should listen to YOUR advice.

Quote:
- Whose point of view did you have in mind?
- On what basis do you think their view would be different?


Why don't you just tell me what you think is wrong with my theory and why.
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33500 - 03/02/10 09:05 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Everybody always givin Ol' Marchimedes advise...Yea, I don't know what I'm doing, maybe I should listen to YOUR advice...Why don't you just tell me what you think is wrong with my theory and why...Yea, I don't know what I'm doing, maybe I should listen to YOUR advice

Hey, no offense, Marchi.

The point is, we're both in the same boat of relative ignorance. The difference is that I don't presume to form my own theories about stuff I know too little about, including cosmology. Speculate, perhaps. Quote the experts, certainly. What you present is, needless to say, greatly at variance with what we can all learn from expert sources. On the balance of probabilities, since you don't have a scientific leg to stand on, that makes your purported 'theories' null and void.

You have my opinion. That's all it is. Whether or not you construe it as advice is up to you.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#33501 - 03/02/10 10:41 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
Momos Offline
Member

Registered: 01/15/10
Posts: 48
Loc: Germany
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes

Bah, numbers, math, don't amount to a hill of beans with my space theories. Don't need all that for my explanation.


Uh. Trying to overthrow physics, without math.
Great, lets see how this works out laugh

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Really, I'm going with at this point that the expansion is actually stopping, the interior of the matter buble is slowing down faster than the exterior becasue of te gravitaional pull of the matter on the opposite side of the buble.


I maybe mistaken, but wasn't there something about: no gravitational pull inside a sphere?
Assuming your "bubble" is more or less spherical, the "pull of the matter on the opposite side of the bubble" would be of the same strength as the matter on this side of the bubble. Of course on the other side of the bubble is more matter, but this side of the bubble is not so far away. I guess Newton calculated that inside a spherical body the gravitational pull of the surrounding walls are canceling each other out, not only in the center of the sphere but also on every other point!
But that's done with numbers....

Top
#33519 - 03/03/10 06:10 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Momos]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
I guess you may have to zoom your screen some to read this.

I see I need to splain space #3 in simpler terms so the slower witted among you can comprehend it.

_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33524 - 03/03/10 11:17 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
Momos Offline
Member

Registered: 01/15/10
Posts: 48
Loc: Germany
1) Why should the stars on the inside of your postulated shell be deceleration? It can't be gravitational pull.

2) The speed of galaxies is measured by their redshift.
As far as I know the redshift of distant galaxies shows a velocity of much more then lightspeed (several times of c).
Conventional this ist explained as not beeing the real velocity.
Instead it is theorized the expansion of space itself is stretching any lightwave on its way. So a lightwave emitted 7 billion years ago (at a time the universe was half ist current size) will be "stretched" by a factor of 2, so the apparent velocity will doubled.
The redshift by expanding space is exceeding the redshift by doppler-effect for distant objects.


Your hypothesis arises the following questions:
a) some objects are still decelerating, for unknown reasons.
b) some objects are still accelerating, for unknown reasons.
c) objects (including ourself) are capable of velocities much higher then lightspeed. (Since we measure distant objects moving away faster then lightspeed in any direction we have to conclude, in your hypothesis. that in fact we are moving away from the "inside shell" with several times c, the "outside shell" is faster yet.
d) Apparently there has to be some mismatch between "local physic" (objects can't move faster then light in our vicinity) and "large scale physics" (our galaxy is moving faster then light)
e) Postulating the possibility of higher velocities then c, also means changing the interactions of other forces - and yet distant galaxies seem to consist of the same elements as our.


3) The Big-Bang-Theory postulates an expansion of space. At the beginning there was almost no space (so to speak), the big bang happend not in some distant point of the universe, but *everywhere* at once.
Expanding space will lead to the same observation *in every place* in the universe: all distant objects are moving away, the more distant they are the faster they move away.
This explains why it seems like we are the center of universal expansion and yet we don't have to assume we have any special position in the universe.

Your theory at least requires a careful arrangement of acceleration/deceleration and positioning of our place (roughly in the middle of the shell)?

4) The microwave background radiation is thought of beeing emitted 400.000 years after the big bang, when the temperature decreased to ~3000K and electrons and protons recombined.
This radiation was emitted *everywhere* in the universe and expansion of space has stretched the wave length of this 3000K-light to the current temperature of 3K.
This radiation is isotrop.

In you hypothesis this radiation should be non-existing (moving faster then any other object it would surround the matter-sphere in an expanding light shell moving through the empty pre-existing-space), or it should be anisotrop, coming from the direction of the "Big-Bang-Point"?



Edited by Momos (03/03/10 11:27 AM)

Top
#33528 - 03/03/10 04:22 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Momos]
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
Originally Posted By: Momos
1) Why should the stars on the inside of your postulated shell be deceleration? It can't be gravitational pull.


I don't have any stars inside the shell, the stars are the shell. [/quote]

Quote:
2) The speed of galaxies is measured by their redshift.
As far as I know the redshift of distant galaxies shows a velocity of much more then lightspeed (several times of c).
Conventional this ist explained as not beeing the real velocity.


It doesn't show light speed as far as I know.

Quote:
Instead it is theorized the expansion of space itself is stretching any lightwave on its way. So a lightwave emitted 7 billion years ago (at a time the universe was half ist current size) will be "stretched" by a factor of 2, so the apparent velocity will doubled.
The redshift by expanding space is exceeding the redshift by doppler-effect for distant objects.


Actually in my space #3 theory matter has been decellerating from the moment of the big bang, so at halfway through the age of the universe the size of my univese is far more than half it's eventual size. And when I say "size of the universe" I mean the area of the mass that has been dispersed in said universe.

Quote:
Your hypothesis arises the following questions:
a) some objects are still decelerating, for unknown reasons.
b) some objects are still accelerating, for unknown reasons.


All objects in my universe are presently decellerating, at a point they will all be accellerating, but the visible evidence at this point does not support that.

Quote:
c) objects (including ourself) are capable of velocities much higher then lightspeed. (Since we measure distant objects moving away faster then lightspeed in any direction we have to conclude, in your hypothesis. that in fact we are moving away from the "inside shell" with several times c, the "outside shell" is faster yet.


No where in my theory do I geive any measure of speed besides decelerating.

Quote:
d) Apparently there has to be some mismatch between "local physic" (objects can't move faster then light in our vicinity) and "large scale physics" (our galaxy is moving faster then light)
e) Postulating the possibility of higher velocities then c, also means changing the interactions of other forces - and yet distant galaxies seem to consist of the same elements as our.


You are alone in your universe now, keep that crap outta my universe.


Quote:
3) The Big-Bang-Theory postulates an expansion of space. At the beginning there was almost no space (so to speak), the big bang happend not in some distant point of the universe, but *everywhere* at once.


I say space was allready there, infinate, matter dispersed around space does not make up space in my universe.

Quote:
Expanding space will lead to the same observation *in every place* in the universe: all distant objects are moving away, the more distant they are the faster they move away.


The farter away they are the bigger the rate of decelleration is, do not confuse that with acceleration, it is only apparent acceleration, and I only say that so you guys can visulaize this.


Quote:
This explains why it seems like we are the center of universal expansion and yet we don't have to assume we have any special position in the universe.

Your theory at least requires a careful arrangement of acceleration/deceleration and positioning of our place (roughly in the middle of the shell)?


Actually I would say we are closer to the inside or outside edge of the shell as eveidensed byt eh "hole in the universe" measurement that was taken. It's around here somewhere.

Quote:
4) The microwave background radiation is thought of beeing emitted 400.000 years after the big bang, when the temperature decreased to ~3000K and electrons and protons recombined.
This radiation was emitted *everywhere* in the universe and expansion of space has stretched the wave length of this 3000K-light to the current temperature of 3K.
This radiation is isotrop.

In you hypothesis this radiation should be non-existing (moving faster then any other object it would surround the matter-sphere in an expanding light shell moving through the empty pre-existing-space), or it should be anisotrop, coming from the direction of the "Big-Bang-Point"?


400,000 years after the big band my universe shell would have been still expanding. I guess the radiationhad to come from somewhere so it stands to reason that it came from all matter so it could be coming from the opposite side of my universes shell which would be 800,000 years worth of travel away from us at the time of it's beginning to radiate.
_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
#33532 - 03/03/10 10:03 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
Momos Offline
Member

Registered: 01/15/10
Posts: 48
Loc: Germany
Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
1) Why should the stars on the inside of your postulated shell be deceleration? It can't be gravitational pull.


I don't have any stars inside the shell, the stars are the shell.


I know, but in your example with the cars, you explain the apparent expansion of the visible universe by galaxies on the "inner surface" of the shell decelerating and stars on the "outward parts" of the shell still accelerating.
The point is: there has to be some force which is causing this velocity difference.
Why are some stars, NOW (Billion of years after the Big Bang) decelerating faster then others?

Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
2) The speed of galaxies is measured by their redshift.
As far as I know the redshift of distant galaxies shows a velocity of much more then lightspeed (several times of c).
Conventional this ist explained as not beeing the real velocity.


It doesn't show light speed as far as I know.



http://books.google.com/books?id=_2GeJxVvyFMC&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q=&f=false , Page 36:

"However, they are often also described in terms of a redshift velocity, which is the recessional velocity whose linear Doppler effect z would give the same value z=Z, as the measured spectral redshift. The confusing aspect of all this is that the redshift velocity can easily become greater than the speed of light."

But I have to admit my lack of knowledge in this area.
The redshift caluclator
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~elenc/Calculators/redshift.php?Ho=71&v1=1000&z1=0.001&v2=1000&z2=10 calculates for any value of z a velocity below c.
So I guess you are right.


Nevertheless aren't we measuring distant objects moving away from us with velocities at least up to 1/2 c?

According to your idea we are living in the middle of the shell of an expanding sphere.

Since we can observe distant object in every direction moving away from us with 0.5 c, this leads me to the conclusion the inner part of your shell is standing still, the middle part (including ourselves) is moving with 0.5c, the outer part is faster yet, moving with 1c.
Otherwise you can't explain the difference in velocities.


Furthermore in your hypothesis we should observe a universe with different velocity distributions to each side. Objects at the same distance to the "point of the BigBang" as us should be moving with the same velocity?
So we shouldn't see any movement of them at all?
(apart from movement due to stretching of the "shell" over a larger amount of space).

In any case, I think your idea is scientific, in the sense that your idea is falsifiable. Your hypothesis makes some observable predictions which don't fit the actual observations.


Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
Expanding space will lead to the same observation *in every place* in the universe: all distant objects are moving away, the more distant they are the faster they move away.This explains why it seems like we are the center of universal expansion and yet we don't have to assume we have any special position in the universe.

Your theory at least requires a careful arrangement of acceleration/deceleration and positioning of our place (roughly in the middle of the shell)?


Actually I would say we are closer to the inside or outside edge of the shell as eveidensed byt eh "hole in the universe" measurement that was taken. It's around here somewhere.


I would guess the size of this "hole" is wrong.



Originally Posted By: Marchimedes
Originally Posted By: Momos
4)
In you hypothesis this [background] radiation should be non-existing (moving faster then any other object it would surround the matter-sphere in an expanding light shell moving through the empty pre-existing-space), or it should be anisotrop, coming from the direction of the "Big-Bang-Point"?


400,000 years after the big band my universe shell would have been still expanding. I guess the radiationhad to come from somewhere so it stands to reason that it came from all matter so it could be coming from the opposite side of my universes shell which would be 800,000 years worth of travel away from us at the time of it's beginning to radiate.



A shell of matter sending out radiation, would be clearly visible. We should have a clear anisotropy with most of the background radiation coming from one side of the universe.
Actually at any point X in time (years after the explosion) we should see only the radiation emitted by the parts of your shell in exactly X - light years distance. I would assume we would measure a circle of background radiation (The intersection of your universe-shell and a sphere with a radius of X light years.

Top
Page 7 of 20 < 1 2 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 19 20 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.