Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: zeugma
The thing that has always bothered me about some of the claims made about how far into the past astronomers are able to see is this:

The universe started from a single point in space.

We, as a part of the universe have been travelling from this central point for more or less 15 billion years.

Astronomers say they can see things 14 billion light-years (9.46x10^15 meters) away.

This means that there must be 14 billion light-years of distance between us and the object being observed.

How could we possibly be that distant from any point in space unless we are ourselves, or the object in question is travelling at approximately the speed of light? Another option might be that both we and the object are travelling at half the speed of light in opposite directions.

This has never made sense to me.

Yes, this idea is hard to grasp. Imagine an uninflated balloon. Put dots all over it with a marker. Inflate it. All the dots get further apart. Where's the center? On the surface of the balloon, there is none. The same thing is theorized to have happened with our universe in 3 or 4 dimensions, since the big bang. Space actually expands. Our distance from all stars and galaxies increases, just as the dots on the balloon are all further from each other. All we can say is the most distant objects are 15 billion light years away, and that far back in time. You can't tell the objective center from any point.

I think the result in the article is intuitive, based upon what we know of star formation and the early universe. Stars need some density of gas to form. The universe was denser in the beginning. Q.E.D. the rate of star formation was far higher in the past. What is surprising is that anyone ever thought it was a constant rate.

My little contribution to the ID discussion is: if the universe started from a singularity, why did the Big Bang happen? Why didn't stay a black hole? What force would be great enough to overcome the gravity of all the universe? That's my proof, or argument, for the existance of God.

40 posted on 01/10/2002 10:41:09 AM PST by Forgiven_Sinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: Forgiven_Sinner
What force would be great enough to overcome the gravity of all the universe? That's my proof, or argument, for the existance of God.

Ever her of the inflationary theory?

42 posted on 01/10/2002 1:30:45 PM PST by nimdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
Yes, this idea is hard to grasp. Imagine an uninflated balloon. Put dots all over it with a marker. Inflate it. All the dots get further apart. Where's the center? On the surface of the balloon, there is none.

I was writing you a reply when I decided to do some searches on the expansion rate of the universe. After reading what I found, I figured it is definitely too late at the moment for me to be thinking about such things. It's a great link though.

48 posted on 01/10/2002 9:07:37 PM PST by zeugma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: Forgiven_Sinner; nimdoc
Let me get this straight...

Space is a vacuum, right? Essentially a large void of nothing between the planets and galaxies. In empty space there is no gas, solid, or liquid. So, how can it be expanding? Gases expand with increased temperature or lower pressure. How can nothing expand?

This just seems to fly in the face of what we know about the physics of gases and vacuums.

49 posted on 01/11/2002 6:56:43 AM PST by Come get it
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson