The changing colours of the universe

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The changing colours of the universe

We know we live in an expanding universe but it’s also changing colour and has been doing so for billions of years.

Take a look at a Hubble image of the distant universe and you will see hundreds of galaxies that come in a variety of shapes and colours. So what are we seeing?

Read more...

[taniwha]

The photos of the universe are dazzling. With the eventual demise of light forecast due to expansion, colours would have little meaning, might we loose our eyesight, becoming worm~like, other senses taking more command, and communicating perhaps more like bats and dolphins? I shudder to say I hope not.

The red shift is intricate but it seems to have its socks on back to front the more I think about it.

If the galaxies are receding away faster the further back in time we look, then surely that means the closer you get to home the slower things get, until you reach here and now, our current speed, which certainly means as we continue on into the future we are getting slower and slower and not faster and faster by comparison?

For all we know the past accelerations of the galaxies have come to a grinding halt and we wouldnt know it. But we should know it because its like traffic travelling to a speed limit till they run out of fuel or the brakes are applied. As a result collisions do happen and that is what we observe in the universal expressway.

I have added this aside to contemplate the question, " might the universe be shrinkig rather than expanding?"

If you are in need of some light comedy relief heres what the experts say...

Edited April 29, 2014 by taniwha

[Waspie_Dwarf]

The red shift is intricate but it seems to have its socks on back to front the more I think about it.

It's all very well thinking about things, but if you don't understand the concepts you are thinking about you are only going to produce nonsense, like the post above.

Science is not a democracy, not all opinions are equal. Scientist don't just make stuff up, unlike you. Scientific hypothesis are based on observation, not opinion. They are based on logical deduction, not guess work. It is good to question the scientific orthodoxy but to do so you must first know what the scientific orthodoxy ACTUALLY is, otherwise you have simply wasted your own time and that of any poor unfortunate that tries to make sense of the unscientific drivel you post.

You need to start asking questions, start trying to learn about the concepts involved. If you did that you might produce a post that is more than just unintelligible word soup.

As Spock might say, to believe you have the answer when you don't even know the question is illogical.

[spacecowboy342]

Taniwah, one thing to think about is , to an observer on one of those distant galaxies we would appear to be the ones accelerating away.

[taniwha]

In our expanding universe, galaxies are rushing away from us at vast speeds. Nearby galaxies, only millions of light years from Earth, are speeding away at hundreds of kilometres every second. More distant galaxies, billions of light years away, are rushing away at speeds in excess of 100,000 kilometres every second.

The more distant in space the past is, the faster it appears to move. The not so distant past is not so fast. That is exactly what is observed and exactly what you would expect to see if the Milky way was the centre of the universe.

Fantastically more than that, when we see a doppler shift we see a time shift!

My theory is the galaxies must be revolving within a revolving universe. That is to say space and time expand due to angular momentum and the cetrifugal energy created is pulling everything toward its outer edge.

If our universe is a rapidly spinning spiral I wont be suprised, that is the model my theory supports and science seems to as well.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Fantastically more than that, when we see a doppler shift we see a time shift!

Please explain what you mean by this.

My theory is the galaxies must be revolving within a revolving universe. That is to say space and time expand due to angular momentum and the cetrifugal energy created is pulling everything toward its outer edge.

Excellent... one little proble, there is no such thing as centrifugal force.

What is perceived as centrifugal force is inertia, the desire of an object to continue in a straight line when a centripetal force is acting on it. It is the result of Newton's Laws.

and science seems to as well

No it doesn't, it's just that you don't understand the science... and this is not degree level stuff, Newton's Laws are high school science.

Yet again I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but if you do not understand extremely basic science how do you think it is possible that you have an insight into the more complex stuff?

Try learning the basics first.

[Peter B]

The more distant in space the past is, the faster it appears to move. The not so distant past is not so fast. That is exactly what is observed and exactly what you would expect to see if the Milky way was the centre of the universe...

Yet you failed to address Spacecowboy342's post immediately above yours:

...to an observer on one of those distant galaxies we would appear to be the ones accelerating away.

If an observer in any distant galaxy sees exactly the same effect we see, that suggests our galaxy is nothing special.

[taniwha]

Please explain what you mean by this.

Time in regards to distance and speed. Think of the outer rim of a penny farthings biggest wheel. Central time is measured slower than outer time. If a day in the universe is one revolution the centre will also take one day to revolve but it wil travel nowhere near the speed or distance of the outer edge. Like any timing mechanism it can be magnified or compressed and like gears, mass is influenced the same way just like the workings of the smaller wheel on the penny farthing.

Excellent... one little proble, there is no such thing as centrifugal force.

What is perceived as centrifugal force is inertia, the desire of an object to continue in a straight line when a centripetal force is acting on it. It is the result of Newton's Laws.

Yes, the concept Is the energy produced.

No it doesn't, it's just that you don't understand the science... and this is not degree level stuff, Newton's Laws are high school science.

Yet again I feel like I'm stating the obvious here, but if you do not understand extremely basic science how do you think it is possible that you have an insight into the more complex stuff?

Try learning the basics first.

Then you should know that nothing is stationary and everything is moving even time and space. This isnt fantasy it is fact. I contend that the entire universe is extremely busy revolving and it may be just one of many cogs in a greater more complex cycle of motion.

[taniwha]

Taniwah, one thing to think about is , to an observer on one of those distant galaxies we would appear to be the ones accelerating away.

Because the universe revolves everything appears to accelerate away.

[Frank Merton]

Because the universe revolves everything appears to accelerate away.

Well not quite. There is no evidence of a general revolution of the universe as a whole. My view is that the universe's conserved quantities all total zero, which would mean its angular momentum is also zero, which would mean no rotation.

Relatively nearby objects, including all of our galaxy and a dozen or so nearby objects, do not appear to move away and in fact we are moving toward the Andromeda galaxy.

As you get further out the general expansion of the universe begins to be noticeable, and the further out you get the faster the speeds. Indeed, recession velocity is a good rough indicator of distance. The reason is the big bang which set the universe itself into expansion, which seems to be accelerating for at present murky if not outright unknown reasons (although it has a name -- "dark energy").

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Time in regards to distance and speed. Think of the outer rim of a penny farthings biggest wheel. Central time is measured slower than outer time. If a day in the universe is one revolution the centre will also take one day to revolve but it wil travel nowhere near the speed or distance of the outer edge. Like any timing mechanism it can be magnified or compressed and like gears, mass is influenced the same way just like the workings of the smaller wheel on the penny farthing.

Okay, now would you like to explain that in a way that actually makes sense. This is more or less word soup. It means nothing.

You are claiming a relationship between the Doppler shift and a time shift, NOTHING in your above post explains your perceived relationship. In fact you seem to be demonstrating a total lack of comprehension as to what time is.

Time at the centre of a wheel will be the same as time at the outer edge of the wheel UNLESS the wheel is rotating at relativistic speeds. It has nothing at all to do with Doppler shift.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Because the universe revolves everything appears to accelerate away.

No it wouldn't.

To use your penny-farthing example, if you are at the edge of the wheel NOTHING would be seeing to move away from you. In fact at the centre NOTHING would appear to move away from you, it would simply rotate around you.

The rotation would not cause red-shift of galaxies UNLESS there was another force involved. But if there is another force involved (which there is) then there is no need for the universe to be rotating.

Your idea makes no logical sense.

[taniwha]

Okay, now would you like to explain that in a way that actually makes sense. This is more or less word soup. It means nothing.

You are claiming a relationship between the Doppler shift and a time shift, NOTHING in your above post explains your perceived relationship. In fact you seem to be demonstrating a total lack of comprehension as to what time is.

Time at the centre of a wheel will be the same as time at the outer edge of the wheel UNLESS the wheel is rotating at relativistic speeds. It has nothing at all to do with Doppler shift.

Well it is more likely that there are in fact different hemispheres of spin. This is why the universe would spiral, if we knock the idea back a dimension it might be similar in appearance to the milky way.

Obviously the wheel is a simplistic model to convey the idea of spin, whichever way you look at it the outer hemisphere will rotate through time and space quicker than the inner hemisphere. This may cause time anomalies like is observed with red shift, where the past seems to accelerate at much quicker speeds than the not so distant past.

If you released an incredible tightly wound spring and then measured its red shift you would see the same accelerations.

The energy and driving force of time and space acts in a similar way as an uncoiling spring.

[taniwha]

No it wouldn't.

To use your penny-farthing example, if you are at the edge of the wheel NOTHING would be seeing to move away from you. In fact at the centre NOTHING would appear to move away from you, it would simply rotate around you.

The rotation would not cause red-shift of galaxies UNLESS there was another force involved. But if there is another force involved (which there is) then there is no need for the universe to be rotating.

Your idea makes no logical sense.

You really have to read my post above. My idea is sound. It appears the universe is what is illogical to you.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

You really have to read my post above. My idea is sound. It appears the universe is what is illogical to you.

I have read your post. I have studied chemistry and a little astronomy, it is patently clear that you not. In fact you have no idea about even the most basic concepts involved. In not one post in ANY topic you have derailed in this section have you put forward a single, logic, intelligent idea.

In this topic alone you have shown that you don't understand Newton's Laws, Kepler's Laws, the Doppler Effect, the Big Bang theory or the nature of time. In other words you don't understand ANY of the concepts necessary to put forward a logic hypothesis.

I'll say this again:

If you don't understand the most basic concepts you can not possibly understand the complex ones.

Scientific knowledge has to be built. You have to learn the underlying laws and theories before you can expand that knowledge to the complexities of advance cosmological concepts.

Science is not simply about making stuff up and deciding that it must be right because it makes sense to you. Your opinion counts for absolutely nothing (as does mine). It is evidence that counts and you have not presented a single piece of observational evidence to support any of your hair-brained ideas. Not one!

When it comes to the ideas expressed in many of the topics that I post I know that my level of understanding is WAY below that being discussed (despite having been a professional chemist and despite having studied astronomy all my life). I know I am out of my depth, but even then I forget more about astronomy over breakfast than you have ever known.

The only person that your ideas make sense to is you... and that is because you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Unless you turn down your ego a few notches, turn on your common-sense and actually attempt to learn something your posts will continue to be like the ones you have made here, meaningless, ignorant drivel.

The choice is up to you. Ask questions. Research the concepts (google and wikipedia are your friends) and make informed posts OR continue to post the first nonsense that comes into your head and continue to look foolish.

One more piece of advice, it you don't like people pointing out that your posts are illogical drivel.. don't post illogical drivel.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Waspie_Dwarf

[taniwha]

Well not quite. There is no evidence of a general revolution of the universe as a whole. My view is that the universe's conserved quantities all total zero, which would mean its angular momentum is also zero, which would mean no rotation.

Relatively nearby objects, including all of our galaxy and a dozen or so nearby objects, do not appear to move away and in fact we are moving toward the Andromeda galaxy.

As you get further out the general expansion of the universe begins to be noticeable, and the further out you get the faster the speeds. Indeed, recession velocity is a good rough indicator of distance. The reason is the big bang which set the universe itself into expansion, which seems to be accelerating for at present murky if not outright unknown reasons (although it has a name -- "dark energy").

I will be glad if someone can show me evidence that the universe is stagnant. The turbulence of a rotating universe causes whirlpools to develop in the dark matter of space, the undercurrents are comparable to the energy vortices of blackholes. It is a naturally dangerous habitat but awesome nonetheless.

We dont know for absolute that the universe is still expanding, just that the last time we measured it, the oldest of galaxies the most distant ones were still moving away, at great speed, a very very very very long time ago.

I think if this acceleration due to rotational expansion continues it eventually becomes physically impossible for a galaxy to maintain its shape and it is shredded apart scattering to the four winds, embedding itself as a memory in the outer hemispheres as CMBR.

It makes me wonder if our universe is a blackhole or something more that all galaxies are spiralling into. It also makes me wonder if we could look into one, if a blackhole is the eyepiece of another universe, if there is life down there looking up wondering as much.

[taniwha]

I have read your post. I have studied chemistry and a little astronomy, it is patently clear that you not. In fact you have no idea about even the most basic concepts involved. In not one post in ANY topic you have derailed in this section have you put forward a single, logic, intelligent idea.

In this topic alone you have shown that you don't understand Newton's Laws, Kepler's Laws, the Doppler Effect, the Big Bang theory or the nature of time. In other words you don't understand ANY of the concepts necessary to put forward a logic hypothesis.

I'll say this again:

If you don't understand the most basic concepts you can not possibly understand the complex ones.

Scientific knowledge has to be built. You have to learn the underlying laws and theories before you can expand that knowledge to the complexities of advance cosmological concepts.

Science is not simply about making stuff up and deciding that it must be right because it makes sense to you. Your opinion counts for absolutely nothing (as does mine). It is evidence that counts and you have not presented a single piece of observational evidence to support any of your hair-brained ideas. Not one!

When it comes to the ideas expressed in many of the topics that I post I know that my level of understanding is WAY below that being discussed (despite having been a professional chemist and despite having studied astronomy all my life). I know I am out of my depth, but even then I forget more about astronomy over breakfast than you have ever known.

The only person that your ideas make sense to is you... and that is because you are arguing from a position of ignorance. Unless you turn down your ego a few notches, turn on your common-sense and actually attempt to learn something your posts will continue to be like the ones you have made here, meaningless, ignorant drivel.

The choice is up to you. Ask questions. Research the concepts (google and wikipedia are your friends) and make informed posts OR continue to post the first nonsense that comes into your head and continue to look foolish.

One more piece of advice, it you don't like people pointing out that your posts are illogical drivel.. don't post illogical drivel.

Its ok. I respect your opinion. I was like you once.

I have moved on though. I dont feel I have to draw you a picture or give a blow by blow account of a rotating expanding universe.

I dont know how I can say it any clearer. It is simple and self explanatory. Space and time rotates, it expands and accelerates, propelling matter onwards and outwards towards the future. It is observed through redshift.

You can battle this theory all you like but if your theory is better then lets have it.

[toast]

The turbulence of a rotating universe causes whirlpools to develop in the dark matter of space (...)

The universe is rotating? In relation to what observation spot? And the marked part of your sentence

does not make any sense.

[taniwha]

The universe is rotating? In relation to what observation spot? And the marked part of your sentence

does not make any sense.

Tell me how it makes no sense? We are all inside the universe so it rotates wherever you are within it. The only question is which way and how the universe is rotating.

[spacecowboy342]

Because the universe revolves everything appears to accelerate away.

No, If the universe revolved there would be a preferred direction, away from a central point. This is not what we observe. Observation shows that there is no central point or that everywhere is the center.

[Lilly]

Spin/revolve relative to what exactly? According to Einstein's theories there is no "center" to the Universe for it to spin/revolve around.

[taniwha]

No, If the universe revolved there would be a preferred direction, away from a central point. This is not what we observe. Observation shows that there is no central point or that everywhere is the center.

The movements of galaxies have never been observed from any other vantage point but our own. I reject your idea with the same ease you reject mine.

Matter in a spiralling universe will tend to corkscrew through time and space just as light does. I think this is part of the reason for the optical illusions that distort our perceptions of where the centre lies or what a centre is.

If you apply logic then matter can only exist within the confines of space and time. That means the spiralling, expansion or acceleration of galaxies mimic the behaviour of our universe. Matter and light cannot travel anywhere that space and time have not preconceived.

Edited May 3, 2014 by taniwha

[spacecowboy342]

The movements of galaxies have never been observed from any other vantage point but our own. I reject your idea with the same ease you reject mine.

Matter in a spiralling universe will tend to corkscrew through time and space just as light does. I think this is part of the reason for the optical illusions that distort our perceptions of where the centre lies or what a centre is.

If you apply logic then matter can only exist within the confines of space and time. That means the spiralling, expansion or acceleration of galaxies mimic the behaviour of our universe. Matter and light cannot travel anywhere that space and time have not preconceived.

We would notice light curving as it went through rotating space. All galaxies are moving away from each other not from a given point

[taniwha]

Spin/revolve relative to what exactly? According to Einstein's theories there is no "center" to the Universe for it to spin/revolve around.

It is spinning or revolving relative to its beginning. It was once here but now its over there. It really isnt that hard to realise. The energy flow, observed from galaxies to atoms are orbital and spiralling. It is the way energy likes to behave. If the universe didnt rotate at the same time it expands then the universe would be at a stanstill which is contrary to physics. You can ask me why this is so. I think it is the way of nature.

You are probably confused by my wheel analogy. It was a simplistic model meant for waspie so he might grasp the concept of spin.

An uncoiling spring is closer to the truth, so combining the two ideas for 3dimensions we have a universe corkscrewing ever forwards. You must shift your thinking to what constitutes a centre because there isnt one, that would be like asking me to wake you up once Time has reached its halfway point in space.

Edited May 3, 2014 by taniwha

[spacecowboy342]

It is spinning or revolving relative to its beginning. It was once here but now its over there. It really isnt that hard to realise. The energy flow, observed from galaxies to atoms are orbital and spiralling. It is the way energy likes to behave. If the universe didnt rotate at the same time it expands then the universe would be at a stanstill which is contrary to physics. You can ask me why this is so. I think it is the way of nature.

You are probably confused by my wheel analogy. It was a simplistic model meant for waspie so he might grasp the concept of spin.

An uncoiling spring is closer to the truth, so combining the two ideas for 3dimensions we have a universe corkscrewing ever forwards. You must shift your thinking to what constitutes a centre because there isnt one, that would be like asking me to wake you up once Time has reached its halfway point in space.

If there is no center it isn't spinning