so I Googled what is the universe expanding into.

[andyd]

The light from almost every body in space that we can observe is red-shifted. That happens when you're looking at something you're moving away from/that is moving away from you (same thing in space).

For the most part, the farther away something is, the more red-shifted its light is -- i.e., the faster it's moving away.

The pattern is consistent with the idea that space is expanding uniformly in all directions.

I agree that space is expanding. I was asking about what space is expanding into ? Sorta the opposite of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Big bang is really a joke, but mostly accepted by the scientific community, that alone should tell you what they really know.

Just out of curiosity to you say that? If it has to do with the R word don't respond please.


Well for starters, how do we know galaxies are moving away from each other when it's our perspective that could be changing. Perhaps our spin around the milky way is bringing us away from other galaxies? What's there reference point?

The light from almost every body in space that we can observe is red-shifted. That happens when you're looking at something you're moving away from/that is moving away from you (same thing in space).

For the most part, the farther away something is, the more red-shifted its light is -- i.e., the faster it's moving away.

The pattern is consistent with the idea that space is expanding uniformly in all directions.


I understand that, but how an you attribute this to universe expansion vs things simply moving away from us? Some galaxies are moving closer to us as well. We can only tell movement based on our point of reference, how can we claim to know what's happening in the whole universe when by our own estimation we only see about 4% of it?
And if it's constantly expanding that figure should be dropping, don't you think?

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I understand that, but how an you attribute this to universe expansion vs things simply moving away from us? Some galaxies are moving closer to us as well. We can only tell movement based on our point of reference, how can we claim to know what's happening in the whole universe when by our own estimation we only see about 4% of it?
And if it's constantly expanding that figure should be dropping, don't you think?


The stuff moving away from us is red shift and the stuff moving closer is blue shifted. Overall the universe is expanding. We can tell about the movement through the red shift. There are about 100-200 billion galaxies out there, it takes a while for those to drop away. Probably the ones beyond 13.8 billion light years, we can no longer make out. Also Andromeda is blue shift. It's coming right at us and will collide with the milky way in about 4 billion years. It's just moving toward us at 110 kilometers per second.

As for the whole 4% thing, it's just extrapolation. For instance they aim telescopes at one portion of the sky and scan it deeply and based on the results of that, extrapolate that to the rest of the universe. They've done that to many and it's mostly the same. That's why you get rough numbers like 100-200 billion galaxies. And for number of stars in the galaxy you get anywhere from 100-400 billion.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359
The stuff moving away from us is red shift and the stuff moving closer is blue shifted. Overall the universe is expanding. We can tell about the movement through the red shift. There are about 100-200 billion galaxies out there, it takes a while for those to drop away. Probably the ones beyond 13.8 billion light years, we can no longer make out. Also Andromeda is blue shift. It's coming right at us and will collide with the milky way in about 4 billion years. It's just moving toward us at 110 kilometers per second.

As for the whole 4% thing, it's just extrapolation. For instance they aim telescopes at one portion of the sky and scan it deeply and based on the results of that, extrapolate that to the rest of the universe. They've done that to many and it's mostly the same. That's why you get rough numbers like 100-200 billion galaxies. And for number of stars in the galaxy you get anywhere from 100-400 billion.


I hope you understand that it's one thing to extrapolate the number of stars or galaxies based on what we see and quite another thing to extrapolate movement. Especially since we don't have a point of reference. And again, just because we see things moving away from us, doesn't mean the whole universe is expanding, well unless we are at the very center of it.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
The stuff moving away from us is red shift and the stuff moving closer is blue shifted. Overall the universe is expanding. We can tell about the movement through the red shift. There are about 100-200 billion galaxies out there, it takes a while for those to drop away. Probably the ones beyond 13.8 billion light years, we can no longer make out. Also Andromeda is blue shift. It's coming right at us and will collide with the milky way in about 4 billion years. It's just moving toward us at 110 kilometers per second.

As for the whole 4% thing, it's just extrapolation. For instance they aim telescopes at one portion of the sky and scan it deeply and based on the results of that, extrapolate that to the rest of the universe. They've done that to many and it's mostly the same. That's why you get rough numbers like 100-200 billion galaxies. And for number of stars in the galaxy you get anywhere from 100-400 billion.


I hope you understand that it's one thing to extrapolate the number of stars or galaxies based on what we see and quite another thing to extrapolate movement. Especially since we don't have a point of reference. And again, just because we see things moving away from us, doesn't mean the whole universe is expanding, well unless we are at the very center of it.


I think many of the things you're questioning is actually pretty well established. I'm not an astrophysicist, so it's hard for me to explain it to you. But basically galaxies closer to us are moving at a slower pace, the ones further away are moving at higher speeds. Hence the universe is receding.

You just need to read up on the theory of relativity.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359

I think many of the things you're questioning is actually pretty well established. I'm not an astrophysicist, so it's hard for me to explain it to you. But basically galaxies closer to us are moving at a slower pace, the ones further away are moving at higher speeds. Hence the universe is receding.

You just need to read up on the theory of relativity.

Not that they have all the answers but the questions that he is asking have been verified thousands/millions of ways/times since 1929. They now know that this expansion is accelerating (learned in 1998)
http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/basic/universe/

So many good books out there...questioning it without any basic knowledge of the universe is like suggesting the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[Schmoe]

Some really good interesting stuff out there. One thing that makes the most sense in trying to answer my own question that has pondered in my head for years, is what one poster said.....our feeble brains just can't quite comprehend it all just yet. I look up at the stars and listened to all the theories and have studied astrophysics in college, but yet still wonder, exactly where did the matter all start off with in the very beginning of time/space? But, you can't because time is irrelevant and space is....well....just space that, at least from what all we can see, is just space. It never ends. Like the energizer bunny, it keeps going and going and going....but at some point....there just had to be some sort of matter/energy that initiated it all and then things took off and expanded from there on out. I'm not going to use the word "evolved", but there had to be a beginning and that's what has intrigued me since my college years. That let to "why?" If it was all a random act, or a big bang theory, fine. But there had to be "something" that started it all. We are here on Earth, we recognize each other, 3 dimensions, space, planets, gravity, etc. etc. We look up to the heavens...and keep looking...and realize that there is no end, but there are ka-jillions of galaxies, planets, stars and we are just a speck in the grand scheme of things. That's a lot of matter. That all started from "something." Why? How? The only thing I can kind of believe is that it's a never ending cycle. Energy is neither created or destroyed, just mixed up in a bunch of different ways and that's "how" we all exist. Face it, physically, we are all a bunch of molecules. But now bring in conscious. Those re-arranged molecules gave us that. Does conscious have weight? I remember those experiments that supposedly showed that when a person dies, they actually lose a little weight, but that has been refuted numerous times. Does the conscious get recycled too? Now this is the point where religion would come in, but I ain't going into all that, plus it'll lock up this thread. Anyway, sure enjoying all the good reads.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Al
So many good books out there...questioning it without any basic knowledge of the universe is like suggesting the sun revolves around the earth.

Been having a similar conversation with a good friend of mine on evolution (he's a creationist).

Him: "There's no evidence of X!"
Me: Have you read this?
Him: "No, but this other guy says ABC!"
Me: Have you read any of the rebuttals to that by actual biologists and paleontologists?
Him: "No, but there's absolutely no evidence anywhere of Y!"
Me: Did you Google it? Or read what I showed you about X? Or anything else?
Him: "No, but show me evidence of Z!"
Me: That's not even a thing.
Him: "Why not??"
Me: You have to understand X and Y to know --
Him: "Yeah, but there's no evidence..."

etc. etc.

IMO, the problem isn't the lack of knowledge per se. The problem is the illusion of understanding, plus the delusions of "common sense". And on certain topics including cosmology, there are surprisingly extensive and sophisticated pseudoscience industries that give quite an impressive illusion of being the real deal, and their influence is in a lot of places that one might not expect. People can hardly be blamed for being confident about ideas that conflict with the science.

Still hugely frustrating though.

 

[Schmoe]

I had some die hard creationist friends in college when we studied evolution. They still didn't believe it. But then they had to take an advanced genetics class.....they quit arguing about it.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
I had some die hard creationist friends in college when we studied evolution. They still didn't believe it. But then they had to take an advanced genetics class.....they quit arguing about it.
A.N. Wilson says in "God's Funeral", "Darwin's views could (until the discovery DNA) have been regarded as speculative though the evidence Darwin himself had accumulated began to look overwhelming." Watson and Crick and the double helix put and end to speculation for many. I have enjoyed this discussion and hope it will continue.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d


IMO, the problem isn't the lack of knowledge per se. The problem is the illusion of understanding, plus the delusions of "common sense". And on certain topics including cosmology, there are surprisingly extensive and sophisticated pseudoscience industries that give quite an impressive illusion of being the real deal, and their influence is in a lot of places that one might not expect. People can hardly be blamed for being confident about ideas that conflict with the science.

I do agree with you. The physical world may be forever beyond what we are able to understand..on so many levels. And I think you are coming from that direction. Its not impossible that everything we perceive a 3D Hologram originating from a bunch of 2D "x's and 0's"[binary code] Not that I believe that .....it could even be more bizarre.

But people that don't believe in "science" concepts are at a way lower level than you..believe me. Their head is firmly planted where the sun don't shine. I am so blessed to have the opportunities to read about the latest theories.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Author A.N. Wilson says in" God's Funeral" that "Darwin's views could (until the discovery of DNA) have been regarded as speculative: though the evidence Darwin himself had accumulated began to look overwhelming." Watson and Crick and the discovery of the DNA helix ended that speculation for many , but a two thousand year old tradition lives on. I have enjoyed this discussion and hope it continues.

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Big bang is really a joke, but mostly accepted by the scientific community, that alone should tell you what they really know.
And Intelligent Design (creation in a cheap tuxedo) is a better explanation?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
Does the conscious get recycled too?


Given that the act of observation changes happenings at the quantum scale, then it's apparent that Consciousness is an inherent part of the universe...

(it's harder to believe that a bunch of chemical reactions unrelated to the experiment can change things at a distance)

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: Wolf359

I think many of the things you're questioning is actually pretty well established. I'm not an astrophysicist, so it's hard for me to explain it to you. But basically galaxies closer to us are moving at a slower pace, the ones further away are moving at higher speeds. Hence the universe is receding.

You just need to read up on the theory of relativity.

Not that they have all the answers but the questions that he is asking have been verified thousands/millions of ways/times since 1929. They now know that this expansion is accelerating (learned in 1998)
http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/proj/basic/universe/

So many good books out there...questioning it without any basic knowledge of the universe is like suggesting the sun revolves around the earth.


Right, looked up a few other things, it's basically Hubble's law and the Hubble constant which was back in the 1920's. Still generally accepted today along with the Einstein's theory of relativity which is still being proven correct by the recent detection of 4 black hole collisions and one neutron star collision. The neutron stars colliding is the most significant as the gravity waves were detected 1.7 seconds before the gamma rays which basically nails down the speed of gravity down to 15 decimal places and that gravity waves travel at the speed of light.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
Maybe existence is the default. Alan Guth says the universe (matter/energy) has existed forever. It didn't have to come from something, it's just there.

That however, contradicts the evidence in the observable universe which indicates that whatever "it" was, it came from outside, at a specific point in time, and at a specific place. It was not already here since space itself is expanding, the universe is not expanding "into" anything.



I now point to a paper that shows just how bizarre and crackpot these theories can get:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing, by Dongshan He, Dongfeng Gao, Qing-yu Cai.

This paper presents a belief in certain unproven assumptions 1) that their model somehow describes the universe in an extremely short time immediately after which the BB expansion was supposed to have begun, 2) that the real universe can be described by the mathematics and physical laws they assume happened in a conjectural past epoch where it is impossible to test anything.

The crux of the mathematics attempts to show that once a small vacuum bubble is created, it has a chance to expand exponentially, thus creating the observed universe.

The word chance means they are talking about an ensemble of probable universes that might result from their model. In Quantum Mechanics, we deal with the probabilities of realizing a potential outcome, and in this case, the probability of a universe such as ours is very small.

Note: Their claim of a spontaneous creation is only valid for a scale factor of a > 0, which means their approach requires a metastable quantum vacuum, which must have already existed prior to the expansion.

Furthermore, this formulation asks us to accept, without any proof or evidence that laws of physics were in existence before the start of this exponential expansion.

For a universe to come into existence by itself, it must create its own physical laws, generate its own space-time, its own matter, and its own energy, and not from any antecedent quantum vacuum, whether metastable or not.

The obvious problem here is that these formulae constitute a metaphysical conjecture that is not testable in a real universe.

 

[andyd]

Thank you all. I have learned much. My first question is till unanswered. Nobody knows, but there is all kinds of supposition. is the best I came up with.

 

[d00df00d]

Again, the question might not even make sense. Who says the universe is expanding "into" anything at all?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
I understand that, but how an you attribute this to universe expansion vs things simply moving away from us? Some galaxies are moving closer to us as well. We can only tell movement based on our point of reference, how can we claim to know what's happening in the whole universe when by our own estimation we only see about 4% of it?
And if it's constantly expanding that figure should be dropping, don't you think?

Sorry I missed this earlier.

Spitballing here, but considering JUST the red shift, I'd think there'd be two possible explanations for the data we observe:

A. Space itself is expanding uniformly in all directions, or
B. We are literally at the exact center of the universe, and something is dragging almost everything away from us uniformly at an accelerating rate, up to and well past the speed of light, with some exceptions for whatever reason.

Pretty sure the smart money's on A.

There's a bunch more though -- most of which I'm not sure I understand, so I'll simply refer you to Wikipedia as a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence

Also, the consensus seems to be that our horizon IS shrinking as the universe ages.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Again, the question might not even make sense. Who says the universe is expanding "into" anything at all?

If you look back in this thread I think that is exactly the answer. One way to look at it is that the question is inappropriate, it's not as if there is this preexisting empty "room" that the observable universe is expanding into. There is no "thing" that exists into which we are expanding.

Not that I understand that mind you. It's just what is being observed. And by the way, that SciAm article I linked points out something very important about this expansion. It turns out that the universe must be either expanding or contracting in order to produce the extreme flatness that is observed (which is critical since if it weren't flat the observations being made couldn't be observed). And since the overall velocities observed are red-shifted then it is expanding, not contracting. You can't have a flat universe that is static. The flatness of space is actually one of the most profound attributes out of everything that is observed. It's not just flat - it is very, very flat, and to a degree that is unlike anything else observed in the whole of the cosmos.