Astronomers find 'most distant' galaxy

[J. K.]

The entire universe is expanding. There is no center.

In fact, the idea of a center would be counter to the concept of relativity in that it would give us a reference point that was immobile and thus we would be able to measure all velocities against it - allowing the existence of absolute velocity.

If such a concept were true, then relativity experiments would not reveal what they have revealed.

Regarding the expansion velocity, there is none.

There is a rate of expansion. How "fast" an object appears to recede from us depends on how much expanding space exists between that object and ourselves.

Harte

Can you explain how something can expand without having an origin that it's expanding from, and how rate and velocity are not the same thing?

[Frank Merton]

The standard analogy is that of a bunch of paint blobs on a balloon. As the balloon is enlarged, each paint blob sees itself as moving away from its neighbors, and away even faster from those further from it, and so on, so that rate of speed away is an indicator of distance. The objects themselves are not actually moving (unless they have some motion of their own, which pain blobs would not). Instead, it is the balloon that is stretching (space is expanding carrying the galaxies with it). Each given paint blob sees itself as the center with others moving away, but this is an illusion.

We live in a three-dimensional version of that (while the balloon is also a three-dimensional object, the paint blobs are only aware of two of the dimensions). Whether this three-dimensional object has its own curvature (the balloon has positive curvature and closes on itself) and whether this curvature is positive or negative is undecided, as all the evidence so far points to a "flat" expansion.

[Harte]

Can you explain how something can expand without having an origin that it's expanding from, and how rate and velocity are not the same thing?

Take a balloon and a magic marker.

Make dots all over the (deflated) ballon.

Inflate the balloon and see for yourself what happens to the dots.

Oops.

That's what I get for responding immediately.

Well, another analogy is raisins in a (raw) loaf of raisin bread.

Let the bread rise and bake it and watch the raisins all move away from each and every other raisin.

Harte

Edited October 25, 2013 by Harte

[J. K.]

Take a balloon and a magic marker.

Make dots all over the (deflated) ballon.

Inflate the balloon and see for yourself what happens to the dots.

Oops.

That's what I get for responding immediately.

Well, another analogy is raisins in a (raw) loaf of raisin bread.

Let the bread rise and bake it and watch the raisins all move away from each and every other raisin.

Harte

Dots on a balloon are only in two dimensions. We live in three dimensions. Inside the balloon is a center point from which the rubber of the balloon expands.

As for the raisins - yes, they move from each other, but they all move away from the bottom of the pan, which is a fixed point.

Additionally, the change in position of the dots and raisins implies movement, and movement implies speed/rate/velocity.

My questions remain unanswered.

Have astrophysicists determined the center of the expanding universe?

Have astrophysicists measured the rate of expansion?

[Harte]

Dots on a balloon are only in two dimensions. We live in three dimensions. Inside the balloon is a center point from which the rubber of the balloon expands.

As for the raisins - yes, they move from each other, but they all move away from the bottom of the pan, which is a fixed point.

Any 3-d analogy of a 4 (or more)-d situation is gonna fall apart somewhere.

A large loaf of raisin bread floating in space with extra yeast baked by lasers would work better, but not perfectly of course.

Additionally, the change in position of the dots and raisins implies movement, and movement implies speed/rate/velocity.

My questions remain unanswered.

The actual rate of expansion is in question.

If you think about the dots and the raisins, you'll see that from the perspective of a single raisin, he's not moving but the rest are moving away from him. And the farther away the raisins he observes are, the faster they appear to be moving away. That is because there is more space between him and the farther raisins and the space itself is what is expanding.

This is why velocity per se isn't involved.

Have astrophysicists determined the center of the expanding universe?

Already answered.

Have astrophysicists measured the rate of expansion?

The rate is in question at the moment, but have you ever heard of Google?

Currently, the expansion appears to be accelerating.

Harte

[paperdyer]

If the expansion is not uniform in all directions, the center of the universe would constantly be changing as well. The result is you really don't have a fixed point center.

[Harte]

If the expansion is not uniform in all directions, the center of the universe would constantly be changing as well. The result is you really don't have a fixed point center.

There is no center. ALL of space is expanding. It's not expanding into "empty" space. Existence itself is expanding, so from EVERY perspective in the universe, the rest of the universe is rushing away.

Harte

[ancient astronaut]

A Galaxy far,far away.

[keithisco]

So basically there is no explanation for this Galaxy far, far away....at 30 Billion + light years away we should not be receiving a light signature, but we are. Light being a constant (so I am told but do not believe) means that the light that we receive can be no more than 14 Billion years old, so we are really looking at a Galaxy, fully formed at the creation of the Universe (Big Bang if you will).

None of this really makes sense, the age of this Galaxy (miraculously fully formed at the Big Bang Event) is of course nonsense. Galaxies are not supposed to be fully formed when the Big Bang happened, they take Billions of years to accrete.

Something is seriously wrong with our model of the cosmos.... please prove me wrong...

There is no center. ALL of space is expanding. It's not expanding into "empty" space. Existence itself is expanding, so from EVERY perspective in the universe, the rest of the universe is rushing away.

Harte

Rushing away from where? To rush away suggests a single point, the Big Bang Theory suggests a singularity, a single point where mass existed in a very compressed state but lacking the energy to expand for a time not guessed at, somehow the energy required to expand became evident and so expansion occurred. This is the basis of the Big Bang Theory, and I think it is flawed... no need for a God concept, but just where did this additional energy manifest itself?

Edited October 29, 2013 by keithisco

[Rlyeh]

So basically there is no explanation for this Galaxy far, far away....at 30 Billion + light years away we should not be receiving a light signature, but we are. Light being a constant (so I am told but do not believe) means that the light that we receive can be no more than 14 Billion years old, so we are really looking at a Galaxy, fully formed at the creation of the Universe (Big Bang if you will).

The article has already addressed the origin of the light and why we are seeing it.

[Harte]

Rushing away from where? To rush away suggests a single point, the Big Bang Theory suggests a singularity, a single point where mass existed in a very compressed state but lacking the energy to expand for a time not guessed at, somehow the energy required to expand became evident and so expansion occurred. This is the basis of the Big Bang Theory, and I think it is flawed... no need for a God concept, but just where did this additional energy manifest itself?

See, that single point singularity you mention is not just the mass of the universe, it's ALL of the universe. All the space, all the mass and all the time.

From every single point in the universe, the rest of the universe appears to be rushing away (excepting local variations due to gravity like with us and the Andromeda Galaxy.)

There is no center. Or, alternatively, every point in the universe is the center.

Harte

[J. K.]

There is no center. Or, alternatively, every point in the universe is the center.

Any object with a shape has a definable center point. The only way that every point in the universe could be the center is if space is infinite. If space is infinite, then reality is no longer expanding. Instead, celestial bodies are moving through space at a definable rate of speed.

[Harte]

[/size]

Any object with a shape has a definable center point.

If that is true, then where is the center of the Earth's surface?

The fact that you don't understand 4 dimensional geometry is quite understandable.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this fact is not.

Harte

[J. K.]

If that is true, then where is the center of the Earth's surface?

The fact that you don't understand 4 dimensional geometry is quite understandable.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this fact is not.

Harte

Yes, the earth has a surface; however, it also has an interior, being a sphere. The center point of the earth is in its core.

So, you are saying that the universe is situated on the surface of an expanding sphere that has no interior. Are we able to see objects that are on the side of the sphere opposite from us? How thick is the layer of universe on the sphere's surface? Are celestial objects moving through the vacuum of space, or is "space" expanding and carrying the objects with it?

[Harte]

Yes, the earth has a surface; however, it also has an interior, being a sphere. The center point of the earth is in its core.

Your mention of the inside of the earth would be completely and utterly meaningless to any two-dimensional creature living on the surface of a sphere.

The way to think of dimensions greater than 3 (such as the relationship between 3-d space and 4-d space) is to analogize down one dimension. Which is what I did with the analogy of a 2-d surface having no center.

As a 3-d creature, your advantage over a 2-d creature is that you can visualize the center of the sphere. No such thing exists in the world of a 2-d creature living in the surface of the sphere. Hence, no such thing exists for 3-d creatures living in a 3-d space expanding multidimensionally.

So, you are saying that the universe is situated on the surface of an expanding sphere that has no interior. Are we able to see objects that are on the side of the sphere opposite from us?

I'm saying that the 2-d space analogizes to the 3-d space exactly the way that the 3-d space analogizes to the 4-d space.

A 2-d space is by necessity a surface. This doesn't mean that 3-d space is a surface. It's just easier to think about it that way.

Objects on the side of the sphere opposite us are the farthest away objects in the universe. This thread is about one of them.

How thick is the layer of universe on the sphere's surface? Are celestial objects moving through the vacuum of space, or is "space" expanding and carrying the objects with it?

Space itself is the "surface" you're talking about. It's not really a surface in the way we consider surfaces, which (again) are two dimensional. But if you were a 4-d creature, you'd see 3-d space the way we see surfaces.

Regarding the sphere, it is not known that the universe is a sphere (hypersphere, actually.)

It could be saddle-shaped or simply flat.

In all of the above, there would still be no center.

Harte

[J. K.]

I’m not sure why you brought the Flatlanders into this, since you and I are 3D beings in a 3D world. And sure, there are higher dimensions that exist, but our telescopes don’t see into them.

Is the universe infinite, or does it have a shape? If it has a shape, what’s on the other side of the edge?

[keithisco]

Your mention of the inside of the earth would be completely and utterly meaningless to any two-dimensional creature living on the surface of a sphere.

The way to think of dimensions greater than 3 (such as the relationship between 3-d space and 4-d space) is to analogize down one dimension. Which is what I did with the analogy of a 2-d surface having no center.

As a 3-d creature, your advantage over a 2-d creature is that you can visualize the center of the sphere. No such thing exists in the world of a 2-d creature living in the surface of the sphere. Hence, no such thing exists for 3-d creatures living in a 3-d space expanding multidimensionally.

I'm saying that the 2-d space analogizes to the 3-d space exactly the way that the 3-d space analogizes to the 4-d space.

A 2-d space is by necessity a surface. This doesn't mean that 3-d space is a surface. It's just easier to think about it that way.

Objects on the side of the sphere opposite us are the farthest away objects in the universe. This thread is about one of them.

Space itself is the "surface" you're talking about. It's not really a surface in the way we consider surfaces, which (again) are two dimensional. But if you were a 4-d creature, you'd see 3-d space the way we see surfaces.

Regarding the sphere, it is not known that the universe is a sphere (hypersphere, actually.)

It could be saddle-shaped or simply flat.

In all of the above, there would still be no center.

Harte

No, No. and thriceNo.... you are trying to analogize a 4 Dspace (in which we all live) to some aberrant 3D dimensional space, which has phyisical limitations. No "spatial surfaces are 2 dimensional" where on earth do you get that idea from? We are all 4D creatures, (only if you accept that time is the 4th most important dimension). Even in this aberrant philosophy there would still be a "centre". a singularity that held all of the mass of the Universe, such that the "Big Bang" would have happened in just one place, not throughout the Universe.

Tell me two things..

1 what is the rate of expansion of the Universe?

2. Is the Andromeda Galaxy on a course to intercept the Milky Way (our Galaxy) suggesing that expansion is just a nonsense?

Edited October 30, 2013 by keithisco

[keithisco]

See, that single point singularity you mention is not just the mass of the universe, it's ALL of the universe. All the space, all the mass and all the time.

From every single point in the universe, the rest of the universe appears to be rushing away (excepting local variations due to gravity like with us and the Andromeda Galaxy.)

There is no center. Or, alternatively, every point in the universe is the center.

Harte

I am sorry, but you make no sense at all. In accordance with Big Bang theory there is just one immensely dense singularity, that does not have sufficient energy to expand., Then it does (the mechanics are unknown) from this singularity the Universe is born. ALL matter expelled from this point should be receding, but this is not the case. I think some alternative Physics need to be derived to explain this. Gravity alone is far too weak a source to explain why the Andromedan Galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way (our Galaxy). It goes against all of the tenets of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

2. Is the Andromeda Galaxy on a course to intercept the Milky Way (our Galaxy) suggesing that expansion is just a nonsense?

No it most definitely isn't.

Objects with in an expanding universe can (and do) still posses independent motion.

Ants crawling on the surface of an expanding balloon will still be capable of bumping into each other even though the average distance between them is growing.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf

[coolguy]

Just think there could be a planet there with people and we would not even know.and they won't know we're hear also

[Harte]

***SNIP***

Here's a link for anyone that wants to actually learn the answer to his question.

link

Harte

Edited November 2, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf
No matter how much you disagree with someone please don't resort to insults. From the rules: 5a. Personal attacks: Attack the point being presented, not the person who is making it.