Expansion of Universe, once again....

FreakBoy · 24th January 2005, 02:40 PM

Once again, the cosmos was the topic of discussion with my father (I'd say I'm blessed with my relationship with him, but I don't believe in blessings).

He's still arguing that it should be possible to discover the point of origin of the universe. He says that it should be possible to use the differing redshifts of various astral bodies to get a concept of which direction said "center" is.

What I'm failing at here is a good enough explanation as to why it isn't possible to extrapolate that information. Using the baloon method he keeps pointing out that the antipode of observation should have a redshift that roughly equals double that which we see for objects closer to us... granting that an upper limit of redshift were discovered. Help please?

Diamond · 24th January 2005, 02:51 PM

Take this down by 1 dimension. You are on the surface of a balloon. Where is the center?

FreakBoy · 24th January 2005, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diamond
Take this down by 1 dimension. You are on the surface of a balloon. Where is the center?

When we use the balloon analogy in this sense, are we stating that the surface is the only existing "space" and therefor it is impossible to look for the antipode?

RussDill · 24th January 2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FreakBoy
When we use the balloon analogy in this sense, are we stating that the surface is the only existing "space" and therefor it is impossible to look for the antipode?

In the example, everypoint in space was at the center of the universe at one time.

FreakBoy · 24th January 2005, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
In the example, everypoint in space was at the center of the universe at one time.

This is the expansion OF, not expansion INTO, clause right?

I'm fairly certain he's got that part down. I think we both missed the 2 dimensional aspect of the balloon analogy when thinking finding the point on the "other side" of the balloon. Kinda silly but mistakes are bound to be made, even in a finite but boundless universe... hee hee

All of these analogies seem to imply, for the sake of the analogy, that space is expanding evenly throughout. Correct?

RussDill · 24th January 2005, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FreakBoy
This is the expansion OF, not expansion INTO, clause right?

I'm fairly certain he's got that part down. I think we both missed the 2 dimensional aspect of the balloon analogy when thinking finding the point on the "other side" of the balloon. Kinda silly but mistakes are bound to be made, even in a finite but boundless universe... hee hee

All of these analogies seem to imply, for the sake of the analogy, that space is expanding evenly throughout. Correct?

Right.

FreakBoy · 24th January 2005, 03:54 PM

To beat the dead guy who died beating a dead horse....

When I attempt to mentally transorm the balloon model into a three dimensional mental model I run into difficulty in visualizing the equal expansion of space in three dimensions while trying to keep a central point out of the equation.

It may be that my method of visualizing the expansion is still rooted in the "junk moving through space" rather than the space inbetween growing.... but thats what is understood to be happening, correct?

Matter/Gravitation counteract the expansion, but the spaces inbetween continue to expand and have the result of creating larger distances between points in all directions.

RussDill · 24th January 2005, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FreakBoy
To beat the dead guy who died beating a dead horse....

When I attempt to mentally transorm the balloon model into a three dimensional mental model I run into difficulty in visualizing the equal expansion of space in three dimensions while trying to keep a central point out of the equation.

It may be that my method of visualizing the expansion is still rooted in the "junk moving through space" rather than the space inbetween growing.... but thats what is understood to be happening, correct?

Matter/Gravitation counteract the expansion, but the spaces inbetween continue to expand and have the result of creating larger distances between points in all directions.

Does a raisin cake baking in the oven help?

patnray · 24th January 2005, 04:22 PM

Remember that the balloon model is a 2D surface of a 3D sphere. To add one more dimension you'd have to visualize a 3D surface of a 4D sphere. Hard to picture, but describable mathematically.

Xeriar · 24th January 2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FreakBoy
It may be that my method of visualizing the expansion is still rooted in the "junk moving through space" rather than the space inbetween growing.... but thats what is understood to be happening, correct?

Yes, every point in Space is moving away from every other point in Space at a rate of 71 kilometers per second per megaparsec.

gnome · 24th January 2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
Does a raisin cake baking in the oven help?

The raisin cake has an arguable center...

The way I finally got a hold of this idea was thus: it is common sense that any point you go to seems to be the center of the universe. At any given point, to look into the distance is to look into the past. At 15-20 billion light-years out, you see the background radiation of the original Big Bang. It's that far out no matter where you go in the universe.

Bring in the time-space relationship and it's graspable.

FreakBoy · 25th January 2005, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
Does a raisin cake baking in the oven help?

The raisin cake is a fantastic helper on this subject. The arguable center is worth the risk of using the analogy as it shows that movement of galaxies is possible to have with all moving away from one another.

What it doesn't do is make it any easier for one to imaginge the process continuing after being baked for 30 minutes and allowed to cool. The Universe sounds pretty tasty now.

When I run this through my mind I keep envisioning the expansion of space, "empty" space, continuing until generally local objects become anything but, as I would assume is the current thought on the subject.

I think I'm back to being able to get the expansion once again. I had it down pretty well and the debates with my father must have clouded it.

Thank you all!

Badly Shaved Monkey · 25th January 2005, 07:47 AM

I can semi-cope with space expanding at all points. What begins to make my brain hurt is the concepts of space having negative pressure that is needed for cosmic acceleration. "Space Sucks", I believe, is a bit mind boggling.

toddjh · 25th January 2005, 07:49 AM

One reason I don't like the term "expansion" is because it implies something is growing -- "expanding into what?" is the obvious question. I prefer the term "spreading out."

Remember that, depending on how the geometry works out, the universe is possibly infinite in size (although we can only see a finite portion at any given time). I actually think picturing an infinite universe helps to visualize expansion.

For example, imagine an infinitely large sheet of paper, sprinkled with tiny dots. Now pick one dot and slowly zoom in on it. That dot appears stationary, while the other dots all appear to be moving away from it -- and the farther away they are from the dot you picked, the faster they appear to be receding. That's a really awful analogy, but it helps a little with visualization.

Jeremy

Badly Shaved Monkey · 25th January 2005, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by toddjh
One reason I don't like the term "expansion" is because it implies something is growing -- "expanding into what?" is the obvious question. I prefer the term "spreading out."

I tend to hold a picture of 'thinning out' while at the same time trying not to imagine the thinning creating dilution of the space itself just increasing the gaps between 'stuff'.

CurtC · 25th January 2005, 08:24 AM

Instead of trying to visualize it, why not just point out that the cosmic background radiation, which is "light" from the Big Bang, appears to us as coming equally* from all directions?

* Well, there is a slight redshift, indicating that our galaxy is being dragged over... there... by something called The Great Attractor. But this just indicates our relative movement w/respect to the Big Bang.

FreakBoy · 25th January 2005, 08:35 AM

The microwave radiation is wonderful, but it isn't acceptance of the current theory that is the problem, only a way of making the accepted theory mesh as best as possible with visualization.

FreakBoy · 25th January 2005, 08:38 AM

What I'm coming up with to help me visualize it better, today, is picturing the "empty" areas of space as growing. I understand there is the concept that gravitaion/matter keep the space-expansion from happening and that in general it is the emptier areas doing the brunt of the work.

It may be this visual tool thats a problem because it implies that empty space on any side of a galaxy would be growing and then pushing against the galaxy.... but I think that is simply an artifact of the readily visible physics here on Earth.

RussDill · 25th January 2005, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FreakBoy
What I'm coming up with to help me visualize it better, today, is picturing the "empty" areas of space as growing. I understand there is the concept that gravitaion/matter keep the space-expansion from happening and that in general it is the emptier areas doing the brunt of the work.

It may be this visual tool thats a problem because it implies that empty space on any side of a galaxy would be growing and then pushing against the galaxy.... but I think that is simply an artifact of the readily visible physics here on Earth.

galactic and void "structure"

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/gal_lss.html

FreakBoy · 25th January 2005, 08:57 AM

Wow. From that page, I'm googling Filament "structures". This is fantastic. This concept makes sense from the perspective of the voids growing. As they grow, the apparent density of non-void areas would decrease and create some nifty looking spiderwebby-like things.

Still reading...

Dr Adequate · 25th January 2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FreakBoy
Using the baloon method he keeps pointing out that the antipode of observation should have a redshift that roughly equals double that which we see for objects closer to us... granting that an upper limit of redshift were discovered. Help please?

It's true that the redshift of objects is greater the further away they are (as does indeed follow from the balloon analogy) --- but it would be true wherever on the ballooon you're standing! So how can this observation relate to a "centre"? It's invariant, wherever you are.

FreakBoy · 25th January 2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
It's true that the redshift of objects is greater the further away they are (as does indeed follow from the balloon analogy) --- but it would be true wherever on the ballooon you're standing! So how can this observation relate to a "centre"? It's invariant, wherever you are.

I kept insisting on this but when it came time to fish or cut bait, I couldn't give the correct explanation as to why. It turned out that we both had forgotten that in the balloon mind-experiment, line of sight is restricted to the skin of the balloon due to the reduction of spacial dimensions required for the example.

One has to wonder how many other people get accidently sidetracked this way due to our perception of dimensions.

CurtC · 25th January 2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FreakBoy
The microwave radiation is wonderful, but it isn't acceptance of the current theory that is the problem, only a way of making the accepted theory mesh as best as possible with visualization.

Right. Your dad is wanting to point in a certain direction in the sky, and say "the big bang happened *that* way!" But the cosmic background shows absolutely that it happened in any direction you point to. This, in a Zen-like way, is the crux of the visualization problem. If you can imagine that every direction you point is the center of where the expansion began, then you'll have it. I just don't think that anyone has it, unless you use an analogy with one fewer dimensions.

FreakBoy · 25th January 2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CurtC
Right. Your dad is wanting to point in a certain direction in the sky, and say "the big bang happened *that* way!" But the cosmic background shows absolutely that it happened in any direction you point to. This, in a Zen-like way, is the crux of the visualization problem. If you can imagine that every direction you point is the center of where the expansion began, then you'll have it. I just don't think that anyone has it, unless you use an analogy with one fewer dimensions.

Yep and with discussion we just had he's conceded the point facing our correction of the balloon analogy.

I've said it a million tims (at least offline), but this forum is one of the greatest curries of intelligence around. You all are my heros of the day. And of forseeable future days too!

Badly Shaved Monkey · 25th January 2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CurtC
Right. Your dad is wanting to point in a certain direction in the sky, and say "the big bang happened *that* way!" But the cosmic background shows absolutely that it happened in any direction you point to. This, in a Zen-like way, is the crux of the visualization problem. If you can imagine that every direction you point is the center of where the expansion began, then you'll have it.

No, it's worse than that. It's happening 'right here' as well as 'over there and there and there'. It's just that in the room around me the local expansion due to the Big Bang is tiny and is overwhelmed by the local gravitational dominance of the matter around me

24th January 2005, 02:40 PM	#1
FreakBoy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 176	Expansion of Universe, once again.... Once again, the cosmos was the topic of discussion with my father (I'd say I'm blessed with my relationship with him, but I don't believe in blessings). He's still arguing that it should be possible to discover the point of origin of the universe. He says that it should be possible to use the differing redshifts of various astral bodies to get a concept of which direction said "center" is. What I'm failing at here is a good enough explanation as to why it isn't possible to extrapolate that information. Using the baloon method he keeps pointing out that the antipode of observation should have a redshift that roughly equals double that which we see for objects closer to us... granting that an upper limit of redshift were discovered. Help please?
	__________________ FreakBoy http://www.southfresh.org

24th January 2005, 02:51 PM	#2
Diamond SkepticWiki Founder Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: 'Stralia Posts: 4,748	Take this down by 1 dimension. You are on the surface of a balloon. Where is the center?
	__________________ "The good thing about the Internet is that no matter how many repressed cretins with outmoded morals and religious fundamentalist idiots hate what you have to say, they cannot burn a website." -www.rinderpest.com

24th January 2005, 02:58 PM	#3
FreakBoy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 176	Quote: Originally posted by Diamond Take this down by 1 dimension. You are on the surface of a balloon. Where is the center? When we use the balloon analogy in this sense, are we stating that the surface is the only existing "space" and therefor it is impossible to look for the antipode?
	__________________ FreakBoy http://www.southfresh.org

24th January 2005, 03:06 PM	#4
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,325	Quote: Originally posted by FreakBoy When we use the balloon analogy in this sense, are we stating that the surface is the only existing "space" and therefor it is impossible to look for the antipode? In the example, everypoint in space was at the center of the universe at one time.
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

24th January 2005, 03:29 PM	#5
FreakBoy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 176	Quote: Originally posted by RussDill In the example, everypoint in space was at the center of the universe at one time. This is the expansion OF, not expansion INTO, clause right? I'm fairly certain he's got that part down. I think we both missed the 2 dimensional aspect of the balloon analogy when thinking finding the point on the "other side" of the balloon. Kinda silly but mistakes are bound to be made, even in a finite but boundless universe... hee hee All of these analogies seem to imply, for the sake of the analogy, that space is expanding evenly throughout. Correct?
	__________________ FreakBoy http://www.southfresh.org

24th January 2005, 03:37 PM	#6
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,325	Quote: Originally posted by FreakBoy This is the expansion OF, not expansion INTO, clause right? I'm fairly certain he's got that part down. I think we both missed the 2 dimensional aspect of the balloon analogy when thinking finding the point on the "other side" of the balloon. Kinda silly but mistakes are bound to be made, even in a finite but boundless universe... hee hee All of these analogies seem to imply, for the sake of the analogy, that space is expanding evenly throughout. Correct? Right.
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

24th January 2005, 03:54 PM	#7
FreakBoy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 176	To beat the dead guy who died beating a dead horse.... When I attempt to mentally transorm the balloon model into a three dimensional mental model I run into difficulty in visualizing the equal expansion of space in three dimensions while trying to keep a central point out of the equation. It may be that my method of visualizing the expansion is still rooted in the "junk moving through space" rather than the space inbetween growing.... but thats what is understood to be happening, correct? Matter/Gravitation counteract the expansion, but the spaces inbetween continue to expand and have the result of creating larger distances between points in all directions.
	__________________ FreakBoy http://www.southfresh.org

24th January 2005, 04:20 PM	#8
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,325	Quote: Originally posted by FreakBoy To beat the dead guy who died beating a dead horse.... When I attempt to mentally transorm the balloon model into a three dimensional mental model I run into difficulty in visualizing the equal expansion of space in three dimensions while trying to keep a central point out of the equation. It may be that my method of visualizing the expansion is still rooted in the "junk moving through space" rather than the space inbetween growing.... but thats what is understood to be happening, correct? Matter/Gravitation counteract the expansion, but the spaces inbetween continue to expand and have the result of creating larger distances between points in all directions. Does a raisin cake baking in the oven help?
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

24th January 2005, 04:22 PM	#9
patnray Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 1,008	Remember that the balloon model is a 2D surface of a 3D sphere. To add one more dimension you'd have to visualize a 3D surface of a 4D sphere. Hard to picture, but describable mathematically.

24th January 2005, 04:47 PM	#10
Xeriar Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 253	Quote: Originally posted by FreakBoy It may be that my method of visualizing the expansion is still rooted in the "junk moving through space" rather than the space inbetween growing.... but thats what is understood to be happening, correct? Yes, every point in Space is moving away from every other point in Space at a rate of 71 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
	__________________ Give fire to a man, and he will be warm for the day. Set him on fire, and he will be warm for life. Dumb quotes

24th January 2005, 05:16 PM	#11
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	Quote: Originally posted by RussDill Does a raisin cake baking in the oven help? The raisin cake has an arguable center... The way I finally got a hold of this idea was thus: it is common sense that any point you go to seems to be the center of the universe. At any given point, to look into the distance is to look into the past. At 15-20 billion light-years out, you see the background radiation of the original Big Bang. It's that far out no matter where you go in the universe. Bring in the time-space relationship and it's graspable.
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

25th January 2005, 07:25 AM	#12
FreakBoy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 176	Quote: Originally posted by RussDill Does a raisin cake baking in the oven help? The raisin cake is a fantastic helper on this subject. The arguable center is worth the risk of using the analogy as it shows that movement of galaxies is possible to have with all moving away from one another. What it doesn't do is make it any easier for one to imaginge the process continuing after being baked for 30 minutes and allowed to cool. The Universe sounds pretty tasty now. When I run this through my mind I keep envisioning the expansion of space, "empty" space, continuing until generally local objects become anything but, as I would assume is the current thought on the subject. I think I'm back to being able to get the expansion once again. I had it down pretty well and the debates with my father must have clouded it. Thank you all!
	__________________ FreakBoy http://www.southfresh.org

25th January 2005, 07:47 AM	#13
Badly Shaved Monkey Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor Posts: 5,262	I can semi-cope with space expanding at all points. What begins to make my brain hurt is the concepts of space having negative pressure that is needed for cosmic acceleration. "Space Sucks", I believe, is a bit mind boggling.
	__________________ "i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath. "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park) Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.

25th January 2005, 07:49 AM	#14
toddjh Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,252	One reason I don't like the term "expansion" is because it implies something is growing -- "expanding into what?" is the obvious question. I prefer the term "spreading out." Remember that, depending on how the geometry works out, the universe is possibly infinite in size (although we can only see a finite portion at any given time). I actually think picturing an infinite universe helps to visualize expansion. For example, imagine an infinitely large sheet of paper, sprinkled with tiny dots. Now pick one dot and slowly zoom in on it. That dot appears stationary, while the other dots all appear to be moving away from it -- and the farther away they are from the dot you picked, the faster they appear to be receding. That's a really awful analogy, but it helps a little with visualization. Jeremy

25th January 2005, 08:05 AM	#15
Badly Shaved Monkey Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor Posts: 5,262	Quote: Originally posted by toddjh One reason I don't like the term "expansion" is because it implies something is growing -- "expanding into what?" is the obvious question. I prefer the term "spreading out." I tend to hold a picture of 'thinning out' while at the same time trying not to imagine the thinning creating dilution of the space itself just increasing the gaps between 'stuff'.
	__________________ "i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath. "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park) Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.

25th January 2005, 08:24 AM	#16
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Instead of trying to visualize it, why not just point out that the cosmic background radiation, which is "light" from the Big Bang, appears to us as coming equally* from all directions? * Well, there is a slight redshift, indicating that our galaxy is being dragged over... there... by something called The Great Attractor. But this just indicates our relative movement w/respect to the Big Bang.

25th January 2005, 08:35 AM	#17
FreakBoy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 176	The microwave radiation is wonderful, but it isn't acceptance of the current theory that is the problem, only a way of making the accepted theory mesh as best as possible with visualization.
	__________________ FreakBoy http://www.southfresh.org

25th January 2005, 08:38 AM	#18
FreakBoy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 176	What I'm coming up with to help me visualize it better, today, is picturing the "empty" areas of space as growing. I understand there is the concept that gravitaion/matter keep the space-expansion from happening and that in general it is the emptier areas doing the brunt of the work. It may be this visual tool thats a problem because it implies that empty space on any side of a galaxy would be growing and then pushing against the galaxy.... but I think that is simply an artifact of the readily visible physics here on Earth.
	__________________ FreakBoy http://www.southfresh.org

25th January 2005, 08:43 AM	#19
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,325	Quote: Originally posted by FreakBoy What I'm coming up with to help me visualize it better, today, is picturing the "empty" areas of space as growing. I understand there is the concept that gravitaion/matter keep the space-expansion from happening and that in general it is the emptier areas doing the brunt of the work. It may be this visual tool thats a problem because it implies that empty space on any side of a galaxy would be growing and then pushing against the galaxy.... but I think that is simply an artifact of the readily visible physics here on Earth. galactic and void "structure" http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/gal_lss.html
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

25th January 2005, 08:57 AM	#20
FreakBoy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 176	Wow. From that page, I'm googling Filament "structures". This is fantastic. This concept makes sense from the perspective of the voids growing. As they grow, the apparent density of non-void areas would decrease and create some nifty looking spiderwebby-like things. Still reading...
	__________________ FreakBoy http://www.southfresh.org

25th January 2005, 10:06 AM	#21
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Re: Expansion of Universe, once again.... Quote: Originally posted by FreakBoy Using the baloon method he keeps pointing out that the antipode of observation should have a redshift that roughly equals double that which we see for objects closer to us... granting that an upper limit of redshift were discovered. Help please? It's true that the redshift of objects is greater the further away they are (as does indeed follow from the balloon analogy) --- but it would be true wherever on the ballooon you're standing! So how can this observation relate to a "centre"? It's invariant, wherever you are.

25th January 2005, 10:50 AM	#22
FreakBoy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 176	Re: Re: Expansion of Universe, once again.... Quote: Originally posted by Dr Adequate It's true that the redshift of objects is greater the further away they are (as does indeed follow from the balloon analogy) --- but it would be true wherever on the ballooon you're standing! So how can this observation relate to a "centre"? It's invariant, wherever you are. I kept insisting on this but when it came time to fish or cut bait, I couldn't give the correct explanation as to why. It turned out that we both had forgotten that in the balloon mind-experiment, line of sight is restricted to the skin of the balloon due to the reduction of spacial dimensions required for the example. One has to wonder how many other people get accidently sidetracked this way due to our perception of dimensions.
	__________________ FreakBoy http://www.southfresh.org

25th January 2005, 11:02 AM	#23
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	Quote: Originally posted by FreakBoy The microwave radiation is wonderful, but it isn't acceptance of the current theory that is the problem, only a way of making the accepted theory mesh as best as possible with visualization. Right. Your dad is wanting to point in a certain direction in the sky, and say "the big bang happened that way!" But the cosmic background shows absolutely that it happened in any direction you point to. This, in a Zen-like way, is the crux of the visualization problem. If you can imagine that every direction you point is the center of where the expansion began, then you'll have it. I just don't think that anyone has it, unless you use an analogy with one fewer dimensions.

25th January 2005, 12:01 PM	#24
FreakBoy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 176	Quote: Originally posted by CurtC Right. Your dad is wanting to point in a certain direction in the sky, and say "the big bang happened that way!" But the cosmic background shows absolutely that it happened in any direction you point to. This, in a Zen-like way, is the crux of the visualization problem. If you can imagine that every direction you point is the center of where the expansion began, then you'll have it. I just don't think that anyone has it, unless you use an analogy with one fewer dimensions. Yep and with discussion we just had he's conceded the point facing our correction of the balloon analogy. I've said it a million tims (at least offline), but this forum is one of the greatest curries of intelligence around. You all are my heros of the day. And of forseeable future days too!
	__________________ FreakBoy http://www.southfresh.org

25th January 2005, 12:32 PM	#25
Badly Shaved Monkey Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor Posts: 5,262	Quote: Originally posted by CurtC Right. Your dad is wanting to point in a certain direction in the sky, and say "the big bang happened that way!" But the cosmic background shows absolutely that it happened in any direction you point to. This, in a Zen-like way, is the crux of the visualization problem. If you can imagine that every direction you point is the center of where the expansion began, then you'll have it. No, it's worse than that. It's happening 'right here' as well as 'over there and there and there'. It's just that in the room around me the local expansion due to the Big Bang is tiny and is overwhelmed by the local gravitational dominance of the matter around me
	__________________ "i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath. "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park) Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.