The observation that led to the Big Bang theory is: as we observe the spectral signatures of stars past a certain distance, wavelengths lengthen "shifting" these signatures towards the "red" end of the spectrum. This wavelength increase indicates a loss of energy. Furthermore, this energy loss is observed to be roughly proportional to the distance between Earth and the stars in question.
The Big Bang theory explains the wavelength increase by claiming that the stars are moving away from Earth at a recessional velocity proportional to their redshift. This means the universe is expanding over time. If we rewind time instead, the universe contracts, and if we rewind far enough the universe is contained in a hyperdense singularity. Through some unexplained force, this singularity exploded with enough force to overcome the massive gravity that would otherwise compel such a singularity from further collapsing on itself. With no opposing force strong enough to counteract the ancient momentum from the impulse of the mysterious force, to this day the recessional velocity of all objects, relative to the original location of the Big Bang, is maintained. From now on I will refer to this location as the Genesis Point. The recessional velocity of objects relative to the Genesis Point would then logically be proportional to the distance that object is from the Genesis Point.
However, if this is true, then the recessional velocity relative to Earth would be a matter of vector addition: the recessional velocity of the observed object relative to the Genesis Point + the inverse of the recessional velocity of Earth relative to the Genesis Point. The only place this fits our redshift observations perfectly is where the second half of that addition equals zero: at the Genesis Point itself.
Therefore, can we conclude that the Big Bang theory implies that Earth is very close to the Genesis Point, roughly at the center of the universe?
(continued) If the Big Bang theory claims not only a mysterious force capable of completely overwhelming massive gravity, but also that we're essentially at the center of the universe, doesn't Occam's Razor lead us to believe that perhaps there is a mysterious, non-recessional-velocity cause for the loss of light energy observed in spectral signatures of distant stars?
Julian Sanchez
(continued) To be clear, I'm concerned that something other than recessional velocity, e.g. the effect of gravity on photons, over long stretches of space may be the actual cause of the redshift (hence approximate proportionality to distance).
Juan Ortiz
Anyone? Bueller?
Zachary Reyes
>recessional velocity of all objects, relative to the original location of the Big Bang, is maintained
This is the beginning of the flaw with this argument. Objects do not move away from this GP you're talking about but SPACE ITSELF expanded from the BB. All of space-time was the centre of the universe hence all of it is moving away from itself. This is where the balloon analogy comes in. Draw a central point on a balloon with a ring of points around it and regardless of where you draw these points as you inflate it they all spread out from one another . Just thoughtof this but prob the best way to do this would then be to take one of the 'ring points' and make another ring with it in the centre containing the original centre point in the ring also (may be easiest using hexagons). From both central points perspectives everything is receding from it so they appear in the centre.
Christopher Cruz
>objects do not move away from Genesis Point >objects move away from Earth Pick one. If the expansion of the universe is not movement, then it cannot explain redshift.
Jonathan Rodriguez
It sure can. Someone made a thread last week with the exact same misconception.
Brody Adams
>hyperdense >exploded >velocity from initial event is maintained so you're an idiot who doesn't know what you're talking about. established.
>Earth is very close to the center of the universe?
every point in the universe is the center of the universe from the perspective of that point. Thank-you general relativity.
Henry Wright
>Therefore, can we conclude that the Big Bang theory implies that Earth is very close to the Genesis Point, roughly at the center of the universe? you're basing your argument on observations of the universe observable by earth
ofc that's going to imply a universe centered near earth - the only universe we can see is centered on earth
Carter Miller
You're both saying "the point of observation is the center of the observable universe from that point." Well, obviously. But there is a difference between the center of a frame of reference and the point from which the universe expanded, the original location of the Big Bang singularity. So forget this "center of the universe" derail — do you think the Earth is at or near the Genesis Point?
Lucas Johnson
Your problem is thinking of the big bang as a bang. It's not. When space expands, it doesn't expand into anything, and it doesn't expand out of one particular point (your so called genesis point). Space is not a balloon, it's fucking space. I think you should try studying this topic more in depth, and ignore simplified analogies, because they might be the source of your fallacy.
William Butler
Once you realise that every point in the universe is the centre of the universe you will understand.
Elijah Reed
Everything is the genesis point, the universe didn't explode it expanded from a singular point.
Joseph Perez
If this is true, expansion does not cause recessional velocity. If the point you are at does not change, expansion is not movement.
Bentley Reed
The balloon analogy helps here. You can't point to any point on the balloon and call it the genesis point. Measured in three dimensions, all points on the balloon are equidistant from the genesis point at the center of the balloon. As the balloon expands, every point on it measures every other point as moving further away.
In our universe, the genesis point is equidistant from any point that actually exists within our universe. It is in a 4th dimensional direction inaccessible to us.
Luis Hill
We will never understand what space is because we cannot get outside of space.
Carter Green
you do realize that redshift isn't necessarily caused by movement, right? it can also be caused by the expansion of space. things aren't moving away from each other, the space between them is expanding.
Cameron Stewart
but DUDE
where does the space come from?
Hunter Lewis
It doesn't come from anywhere, it's just there being stretched.
Parker Bailey
/Thread
Parker Rogers
Oh, I just now realized you are a troll.
Cameron Morris
Gravity developed AFTER BB. So your hypothesis fails.
Owen Martin
I'm not that guy
and it's called playing Devil's advocate. Scientist says something like "space is expanding" and that doesn't mean shit to brainlets. You need to provide greater explanation.
Eli Nguyen
>every point center in own perspective
Incorrect. Since we live in 4-dimensional almost Euclidean space (curvature is very small), there is a region where the distance to all other regions is a minimum (aka center).
Christian Gonzalez
>implying the universe is infinite
Oh look, more retards.
Christopher Jones
But the universe doesn't curve as far as we know. Therefore, the analogy is unhelpful.
Joshua Gomez
>Gravity developed
This is how much of a fucktard you are.
Brayden Campbell
You are wrong. I am right. Discussion is over.
Isaiah Thomas
There is a simpler reason why inflationist models are bullshit: the universe is neither homogeneous nor isotropic.
Landon Allen
>t. brainlet
Jace Sullivan
inb4 brainlet physicists bring up their ad-hoc unrigorous modifications like >it's homogenous and isotropic at """large""" scales
Connor King
Are you claiming only the space between matter is expanding, or that the spaces and the matter is expanding? If it's the former, please point to empirical evidence. If the latter, who cares? If earth, the star, the space between the two, the photon, and the wavelength are all inflating together, it doesn't explain redshift.
Andrew Ross
When posting false theorems, please provide proof.
Thomas Torres
Shut up fag
Connor Fisher
this thread exists because some people can't or don't comprehend the nature of expanding space-time and are stuck on insisting the "big-bang" is just an "explosion" in 3D space.
Blake Campbell
Yes, exactly. The question is: can't, or don't?
Charles Cox
Only just came back to this thread. >Pick one I dont need to. There was no space for your so called genesis point to exist in. The balloon analogy holds perfectly well if you understand that the expansion you are interested in is the (2D) skin of the balloon itself and not the 3D volume youre actually doing it in. The same is true for space-time but in higher dimensions. On the surface of the balloon the points appear to move relative to one another but their actual position in space doesnt change. If you deflate the balloon they are still in the same place. More rigorously, if you parameterise a point on the balloon's surface as a ratio of perpendicular arc lengths from a given origin then each points co-ord doesnt change with the expansion (assuming spherical balloon).
The idea of a genesis point is where you've gone wrong. The whole of space itself was at at singularity, not that all of the matter was at a single point in space. The space itself it expanding, a bit like the surface on a balloon being blown up, although that's only an analogy
Few other points, >The Big Bang theory explains the wavelength increase by claiming that the stars are moving away from Earth at a recessional velocity proportional to their redshift
Thats not specifically the Big Bang theory, that's just the Doppler effect and shows that space is expanding, the Big Bang theory is applying that to looking back and concluding that all of space must have been at a single point
Jason Gray
That distance is the same for all regions. No matter how small is curvature, balloon is still balloon.
Bentley Wilson
Think about round Earth: its curvature is small, but there's no center (on the surface). No, New York is not the center.
Easton Edwards
I separated the concept of observed redshift from its mainstream explanation of recessional velocity for a reason.
There are basically two competing explanations for redhsift roughly proportional to distance from Earth: 1) it is caused by recessional velocity, therefore the universe is expanding, therefore the universe began as a singularity, therefore Earth is located where this singularity was, which gives us atheist creation myth but we can't have Earth exceptionalism so space inflates like a balloon, or 2) the redshift is not caused by recessional velocity but instead some unknown cause of electromagnetic energy loss
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I can see clear sociopolitical reasons for making Big Bang the official narrative. Please deliver evidence other than redshift supporting universal expansion.
Elijah James
Other evidence that supports hubble:
The sky isn't filled up with light at night
Recessional velocity mandates we are at the center, big bang does not
The entire universe would be observable
The cmb would look drastically different
I think that's enough evidence.
Julian Lewis
Expansion is not movement, but it looks like movement from any perspective, since everything outside of the gravitational cluster you are in is getting farther away.
Isaiah Cox
> the sky isn't filled with light at night The observation that light loses energy proportional to distance implies this already, without need to explain the energy loss. > The entire universe would be observable See above > Recessional velocity mandates we are at center > big bang does not Without recessional velocity the universe is not expanding and the Big Bang has no evidence > the cmb would look drastically different How so?
Jordan Brooks
How the fuck is this true? If space is flat: no centre +ve curvature: same as a sphere, no centre -ve curvature: hyperbolic, same a torus, no centre
Justin White
Not OP Intensity of light is prop to r^2 not it's energy - does not explain a redshift out of visible.
Also the CMB itself is evidence of the BB. It is from the epoch of decoupling. To get those levels of energy you need space to be far smaller than it is now
Michael James
The energy of light is directly proportional to its frequency and inversely proportional to its wavelength. Redshift IS energy loss.
Benjamin Cruz
If the universe is so large that we have a cosmological horizon we cannot see past then without confirmation from a second sufficiently distant point we can not conclude either outcome definitively.
Tyler Ramirez
What force causes the acceleration of points in space away from one another? Can it be observed or measured?
I've heard of the "Big Rip" hypothesis, which postulates that eventually the acceleration of the expansion of space will overpower all four of the fundamental forces and basically rip everything from planets to atomic nuclei apart. Ignoring whether that's true, it would imply that currently the expansionary force of space is fighting against forces like gravity. Can this be measured?
Alexander Reyes
1. There's not actual recessional velocities. This is just a misnomer said by bad physicists (called "astronomers") who misinterpret spectral shifts.
2.) It's not an actual bang, so that's not relevant.
3.) There's no outward force. Nor is there a "genesis point" in our universe.
I was going to continue, but then I realized that it's not worth explaining things to someone who is obviously incapable of learning even the simplest things that wikipedia can explain to you.
Anthony Robinson
question, i dont know anything about the big bang theory why are they all moving away from earth? doesn't that make it seem like earth is the center of the universe? shouldn't our star be moving? shouldn't some stars be moving closer to earth?
my train of thought is the link between red wavelengths and the distance from the earth makes sense because the star light is losing energy within the amount of time it takes the light to reach an observable point from earth, and also lower wavelengths travel farther, i thought? someone please explain this to me
Colton Phillips
Not everything is moving away from earth though. Andromeda is on a collision course with the milky way. We can see evidence of many similar galaxy collisions. And the earth and milky way itself is moving, so if earth were the genesis point, then the genesis point would have to be moving or we revert to an arbitrary geocentric model, somehow we're the center of the universe but at the same time revolve around our sun, which in turn revolves around the galactic core, which in turn is hurtling through space. Think of it this way You have two primitive humans standing on two mountains on opposite sides of the earth. From each reference point they observe that they are the center point for their universe. Now expand this to the actual universe. From our reference point everything except for the things coming towards us look like they're rushing away, now put a duplicate earth in another galaxy a trillion or so light years away and repeat the experiment. They're likely to see the exact same thing.
Ryan Collins
> not everything moving away from earth Enough that the name for the observation that redshirt is roughly proportional to distance from earth is referred to as Hubble's Law. > a duplicate Earth a trillion light years away would see the same things In terms of "(almost) everything is moving away, yes. In terms of " recessional velocity proportional to distance from me," absolutely not.
Carson Hall
hay look guys im big bang god
Jordan Roberts
There is no recessional velocity fucktard. That's a misnomer as I've already said.
Also, the CMB photons peak around 3 kelvin. Nobody can see that with their eyes. But the night sky is filled with light of that low energy. Hence the CMB spectrum that has been measured and supports the big bang.
Inflation and expansion happened, so I don't even get your last point.
Honestly how are you so fucking dumb? Read wikipedia at least.
Blake Anderson
Space is a 3D net. Some areas are contracting. Some areas are expanding. This is happening all over the universe and each area affects every other area around it. We are in a section that is currently expanding. The patterning of this is similar to most entropic patterns; much like galactic filaments. Though, on a scale that is incomprehensible to humanity. Due to this, the "big bang" is incorrect, but cursory observations would make it appear correct.
