Big bang moving 3 time the speed of light?

a reply to: buddha

You need to learn to write correctly before you post. This is garbled, nonsensical, and poorly communicated.

a reply to: buddha

I haven't read all the posts so there's that. If the *known/observable* universe is ~14billion years old, it's 14billion light years in all directions. This would make it a minimum ~28 billion light years from one side of the *known/observable* universe to the other in a way we can all understand.

Lawrence Krauss has a good way of explaining the expansion of the universe. He says it's comparable to two people on two dinghies a distance apart from each other. The sea can move them further away from each other even though they are 'relatively' still. Switch the sea for the universe and the dinghies for galaxies (or star systems) and you get an idea of the universe expanding.

When the science guys get into ~90 billion light years 'diameter' they're factoring in the expansion of the universe. I'm explaining this in terms I can understand and not as though I'm pretending to be an expert.

what is it expanding in to?
are there more big bangs?
are scientists stupid? I think so.
why do people thing what a scientist says is always true?

1 - So far, the popular idea is it isn't expanding *into* anything. This universe is all there is (popular idea) so existence is expanding...there is nothing else.

2 - Let's hope there are no more in our lifetimes! Some scientists say it isn't impossible for 'big bangs' to occur in the parts of this universe that we'll never be able to measure or observe. It's a mindboggler.

3 - How long is a piece of string? Are all scientists replicas of each other? Was a 17th scientist as knowledgeable as a 19th Century scientist?

4 - Same as number 3.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Nothin

Some of them...

yes.

Good answer.

How do you tell the difference, between fantasy, and what is true?

What are the criterion, for what you choose to believe, or view as fantasy?

a reply to: StallionDuck

Not necessarily. If you think of the big bang as am implosion rather than an explosion and then a reverberation and expansion of all the energywhich drags the by products behind it as it expands you would not necessarily see a point of origin.

Instead you would see what we do see, red shift and blue shift, not because of an accelerating universe but because of stretching space time causing time dilation and blue shift towards the origin vector and red shift towards the expansion vector.

No need for contrived dark matter to explain unnecessary energy. Much more elegant explanation and lend towards occam's razor as well.

Jaden

a reply to: Nothin

Fantasy has no basis in fact or verification.

Fact is studied and verified by multiple independent individuals obtaining the same results.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Nothin
Fantasy has no basis in fact or verification.

It can be measured, though.

a reply to: Blue Shift

It can?

Please measure a Unicorn for me. With pictures.

originally posted by: buddha
Ok they say that the universe started from a big bang.
13.8 billion years old. (look it up)
93 billion light years big.
so that means it is travelling Over 3 times the speed of light.
But they Say you can Not travel over light speed!

what is it expanding in to?
are there more big bangs?
are scientists stupid? I think so.
why do people thing what a scientist says is always true?

I'm sure that certain particles are capable of moving faster than light, that is at a sub-atomic level.
I read an article that black holes spin at half the speed of light.
www.space.com...

I imagine that subatomic particles exchange energy faster than light speed at the very center of a black hole. While the core is vibrating and being crushed under intense pressure it exerts some kind of force out, as well hawking radiation.
Personally I don't think the universe is as old as scientists claim it is. Big bangs should be happening all the time same as big crunch.

If it happened for us. It's only logical that it will happen again, even if it doesn't make any sense.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Blue Shift
It can? Please measure a Unicorn for me. With pictures.

Are we talking about unicorns or fantasies? Because I can have a person describe what they think a unicorn is, maybe even draw a picture, and then compare it to a thousand other descriptions and pictures. If we did that, then we could see that pretty much 99 percent of people believe it to be about the same size as a large horse, and it has a prominent horn coming out of the front of its head.

See? That "99 percent" is an actual number. Generated by measuring a fantasy. And you don't even have to believe in unicorns for me to get even more numbers, such as the percentage of people who think they're real compared to the percentage who don't. And then you can compare those numbers to other numbers. How many people think unicorns are real who also drink coffee? Is there a relationship between coffee drinking and unicorn belief?

We do the same thing with subatomic particles. Oh, well, they're real and unicorns are not. Are they? Really? Or are we just getting a consensus from physicists and mathematicians about a tiny little unicorn?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Nothin

Fantasy has no basis in fact or verification.

Fact is studied and verified by multiple independent individuals obtaining the same results.

There are many common fantasies, including some that some folks think are real.

There are 'facts', that some agree upon, that are viewed as fantasy by others.
Agreement by multiple individuals is group-think, not 'fact'.

Would you like to mention those 'factual' books, that are behind all this?

a reply to: Kandinsky
Thank you
I have been posting that for 4 pages now...

a reply to: StallionDuck
Read up on some Einstein , Hawking , and Susskind stuff
Especially on "black holes"

To me it seems that there's still insufficient data to reach a definitive conclusion on the state of the universe from our limited perspective here on this little rock we call home.

We're trying to explain it based what we see which is a snapshot of billions of years ago.

a reply to: Gothmog

Universe is not comparable to a balloon. A balloon expands from one end while the universe is expanding from the middle. A balloon expansion slows down due to more resistance of the rubber while there is nothing at the edge of the universe to slow it down. In fact, galaxies are accelerating away from the middle of the universe but will never catch up to the constant universe expansion.

Big crunch is an impossibility as the universe is not like a balloon and the spreading of matter are too wide for gravity to attract them together again. I think that the universe will just end up with isolated blackholes that kept flying away from one another.

originally posted by: buddha
Ok they say that the universe started from a big bang.
13.8 billion years old. (look it up)
93 billion light years big.
so that means it is travelling Over 3 times the speed of light.
But they Say you can Not travel over light speed!

are scientists stupid? I think so.
why do people thing what a scientist says is always true?

You can't travel over the speed of light locally, and space expanding is not the same thing as traveling through space.

Scientists don't expect you to accept what they say is true, in fact part of the scientific method is to question everything, even what other scientists say, and look for good or even better evidence to support or refute claims. Aristotle said that a heavier object will fall at a faster speed, and some people believed him, but for a long time any experiments trying to test that idea were flawed in some way. One of the most spectacular tests occurred on the moon when a hammer and feather were dropped and without any atmosphere to slow the fall of the feather, they hit the moon at the same time, proving Aristotle wrong and Newton right. Anyway such experiments are the basis of science, and trying to model how nature behaves based on what the experiments show us, not believing whatever mr. X tells us as you suggest, showing you don't know enough about science to critique the scientific method.

So, the experimental results relevant to your question about the expanding universe are discussed in this paper, but it's probably over your head until you learn some more science. At least you could learn about red shift, which is something that's observed. If you had a big enough telescope you could observe it yourself.

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

What caused the big bang?

Spontaneous combustion?

2 large planets colliding

Gasses mixing ?

So before the start of life there was matter and materials to produce the bang?

So where did that stuff come from?

originally posted by: Bloodworth
What caused the big bang?

Spontaneous combustion?

2 large planets colliding

Gasses mixing ?

So before the start of life there was matter and materials to produce the bang?

So where did that stuff come from?

Quantum fluctuations of zero-point energy, which led to spontaneous decay of a "false vacuum" to a lower energy state.

Happy now?

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Bloodworth
What caused the big bang?

Spontaneous combustion?

2 large planets colliding

Gasses mixing ?

So before the start of life there was matter and materials to produce the bang?

So where did that stuff come from?

Quantum fluctuations of zero-point energy, which led to spontaneous decay of a "false vacuum" to a lower energy state.

Happy now?

Pics or gtfo

originally posted by: Bloodworth

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Bloodworth
What caused the big bang?

Spontaneous combustion?

2 large planets colliding

Gasses mixing ?

So before the start of life there was matter and materials to produce the bang?

So where did that stuff come from?

Quantum fluctuations of zero-point energy, which led to spontaneous decay of a "false vacuum" to a lower energy state.

Happy now?

Pics or gtfo

OK

Hyperinflation is the name of what happened at the big bang they think, maybe #darkmatter #darkenergy - scientists are watching things at the edge accelerate away at speeds likely faster than how we define light speed, it's probably always been moving faster, it's just we cannot measure faster than light.

It used to be common knowledge that the speed of light is dependent on gravity, I was taught that in school - if the universe is expanding out into nothing then it should be able to travel faster.

No one knows - I've seen scientists tell me that nothing escapes a black hole.... except the giant streams of particles streaming away at the poles in the illustrations they use.