Starship Asterisk*

mark swain wrote:The whole universe is spinning? other than that,,, we are all trying to understand...

There is little evidence that the Universe is spinning, and there is some question as to what that even means physically (there are various mathematical treatments of the concept). People have ideas for observations that might detect spin, but so far, no observations have been made.

BMAONE23 wrote:But we have moved relative to our original location.

Have we? What reference is there for our "original location"?

Presuming that the direction and speed of travel relative to the CMB we are currently moving at 600KPS.

That tells nothing about the distance actually moved. Our position with respect to the CMB remains unchanged, because the CMB isn't a "thing" like a shell around us, it is just our measurement of photons reaching our sensors. It's as valid to say it shows a velocity relative to us as it is to say we show a velocity with respect to it. The CMB provides no reference at all to where we were in the past.

You can look at some distant object (like a galaxy cluster) and deduce that we have moved a huge distance away from it over billions of years, but that still doesn't mean that one or the other exclusively "moved". It just means there is a relative velocity between us.

Wow Chris..

That will be three posts, in the same thread, on the bounce.. is that a record?

So let the plot thicken...

Turn back the clock... 13.5 billion years. 1 huge ball of compact hydrogen? (any body know/no the size of this Ball of gas?) A supper giant star forms 100 solar mass +. Then there,s another 1 billion, 900 million huge stars form ,, from this getting smaller Gas blob? Then boom the first type 2 super nova... And the first Black hole? Shortly followed by his bothers and sisters....

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/featu ... /news.html <<<--- Read me!

What difference is our solar systems formation, from the black hole ,, Galaxy factory above?

And when I say Difference I mean Alignment... And why would our solar system, form, Not Aligned to our galaxy?

What can we not see?

Mark

mark swain wrote:Turn back the clock... 13.5 billion years. 1 huge ball of compact hydrogen?

No. An entire universe uniformly filled with hydrogen, helium, and dark matter, already well clumped by by gravitational forces. A big universe. The only "compact balls of hydrogen" were the first stars themselves.

What difference is our solar systems formation, from the black hole ,, Galaxy factory above?

What difference between a bicycle and a zebra? Different things completely. Our solar system developed in a much more evolved universe than galaxies and early black holes, and by different mechanisms.

And when I say Difference I mean Alignment... And why would our solar system, form, Not Aligned to our galaxy?

Why should there be any alignment? Our galaxy was spinning away for 10 billion years, making and mixing the ingredients that ultimately went into the Sun and planets. What would be amazing (and unexplainable) would be if everything in the galaxy shared its spin axis!

As Chris has stated before, It really does come down to conservation of angular momentum. When our solar system formed, the angular momentum imparted a certain spin direction to the entire system. The nearer to the sun that planets formed in our suns coccoon, the closer to similar orbital planes they followed. The same mechanism lead to the formation of other solar systems but each has it's own unique, angular momentum induced, direction of spin and thereby orbital plane.

see attached image

Chris Peterson wrote:Why should there be any alignment? Our galaxy was spinning away for 10 billion years

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Unbeliev ... 3717.shtml
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Strange- ... 5674.shtml
http://www.strangehorizons.com/2008/200 ... in-c.shtml

Thanks guys,, I can see now that the universe has a never ending list of amazement.

Mark

Hello All,

Chris Peterson wrote:

mark swain wrote:Our whole universe was at the same point in time...

Not exactly. In the first place, it wasn't necessarily a singularity, and therefore might have had finite volume. And even if it were a true singularity, "point" isn't the best way to describe it, since that tends to make one think of a universe expanding in something, instead of a universe just expanding.

In any case, by the time matter appeared in a form we recognize today- the basic fundamental particles that make up atoms- the Universe was already large. So any structure we see today formed from density variations that were far from each other.

Well said, Chris. Maybe mark swain's comment is better understood if one places the emphasis within the phrase as such:

"Our whole universe was at the same point in TIME." In other words, along the Z axis. That would likely make his statement true even though the spirit of his argument led one to not see it in that context.

astrolabe wrote:Well said, Chris. Maybe mark swain's comment is better understood if one places the emphasis within the phrase as such:

"Our whole universe was at the same point in TIME." In other words, along the Z axis. That would likely make his statement true even though the spirit of his argument led one to not see it in that context.

Why would you think any other way? If time was created at T= Plank 00000.1 Including T= 45 billion years in the same bang... And that T= Now was also made... jeezzzz you should know me by now....

Mark

Hello mark swain,

I kinda think that past and present is all one gets at any time since Z=Plank .000001. Or better yet, Z=0.

astrolabe wrote:I kinda think that past and present is all one gets at any time since Z=Plank .000001. Or better yet, Z=0.

Close, but no cigar.....

The Past, The Present, And The Future,,,, Has been my stubborn mule.... You would almost think, he knew they were connected?

Mark

Hello mark swain,

In order for past or future to exist there must be a point of temporal reference that relates to us as we are the ones who determine these things by our observations of them and by our reasonings. From that temporal reference point (which is any "now") all things come to us from the past. The 46 billion light years is a radial distance that has taken 13.7 billion years to extend. I'm sure you know this so, at least to me, any future expansion lies in a potential energy state that will require more Z, if in fact there is more Z to allow for events yet to be to unfold. I think scientifically one has to think this way, even me, no matter what my personal beliefs may be. Unless of course the Universe at it's inception was always immediately infinite.

astrolabe wrote:In order for past or future to exist there must be a point of temporal reference that relates to us as we are the ones who determine these things by our observations of them and by our >reasonings.<

Sorry people like to remind me of my spelling. I is not the only one

In order for past or future to exist there must be a point of temporal reference that relates to us as we are the ones who determine these things by our observations of them and by our reasoning's . Incorrect. The Big Bang was a good book, Which was Published 13.6-7 billion years ago. We have not got to The End yet, But i,m told Its a Rip,,, or Crunch.

When a star forms,, it size seals its fate. Just an example. The end can be predicted. (easy)

When T= minus planck -0000.1 and the universe was Nothing... Did Nothing merge with something? Does nothing consist of various, post anti matter descriptions? that we can never find? each giving a reason for us being.... just like the deadly mixture that makes,,,, Salt...

Then there is that time problem... If the Big Bang created Time,, Space Time.. Where in that great game: Scissors, Paper, Stone, Could you apply, ''Time'' to beat Gravity, Light, Energy? Who Wins? And don,t forget time is a thing that can be changed by speed...

I Am not finished,,, astrolabe.. This thread could be never ending...

Mark

Hello mark swain,

I, and maybe you as well, have always found this particular subject facinating to discuss. BTW you are definitely not the only one challenged by spelling but the success af getting the points across more than makes up for it.

Your analogy of the evolution of a star is good. And it's fair to want to surmise on conditions before even 1 Planck Time. You may like this:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hb ... ck.html#c2

You will note the use of the word "presumed" in the text but I believe a lot of the ideas come from whatever it is that we now know or can predict from the currently accepted model. It talks of the separation of Gravity as the first phase in the development of our current Universe. At that moment it is believed that time began- and probably not without argument as this Forum can attest. So what before that? The Universe I believe did not come from nothing but came into being as a reaction to something or some catalyst of some kind. Until then everything was, in my understanding, in a state of pure energy and I have no idea whether that means a singularity and if so what size it would have been since there was no space in order to judge size. So singularity could mean a massless point since there was no mass involved, or a homegenous blob held together by Gravity until whatever triggered Gravity's release came along.

Admittedly, this is nothing but pure speculation and I think, WRT my past posts on this subject as well, that the moderators have been more than patient with me.

reasonings - noun

• 1. The plural form of reasoning

reasoning - noun (plural reasonings)

• 1. Action of the verb to reason.
  2. The deduction of inferences or interpretations from premises; abstract thought; ratiocination.

Reasoning's would be the posessive form of the noun. I can't think of how that might be used.

Hello Bystander,

Nor could I. Maybe something like "His reasoning's downfall was that it was completely unsupported. It's got to be as good as Chris Peterson's "an artifact of perception"............ Well maybe not. That phrase to me is somewhat priceless and, in a lot of instances, so true!

I found that reading the Timeline of the Big Bang at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang gave me a concise outline and was a great starting point.

Next, there is a very readable set of lecture notes on the Birth of the Universe at http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec20.html. They are very readable and address many of the areas in which our intuitive notions of space and time are invalid without being mathematically overwhelming.

Basic background information helps prevent being bogged down by too simple ideas of condensation from 'blobs of hydrogen' and the like. Although a recent simulation suggests that Population III stars (that could condense from something like blobs of hydrogen) might be able to synthesize heavier elements, (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 143329.htm) this is a preliminary result from one researcher. No Population III stars have been observed so this result will have to survive mega scrutiny from other theorists before it is accepted. If I understand correctly, it is unlikely that we will observe PopIII stars because observing the universe to this detail this early in its existence is unlikely.

However, the generally accepted view is that an explosion of a Population III star would not create the level of heavy elements that must have existed in the proplyd from which the sun and solar system are formed. The theory describing stars like the sun resulting from material created by the deaths of other stars (and not directly from hydrogen alone) IS well verified.

This same professor has lecture notes on stellar birth and death, the solar system etc. accessible from http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ They are all very well written.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work.

Pure speculation is fun, but it is not science. Sloppy thinking is not science either. Current astronomical knowledge rests on many, many generations of detailed, laborious observations and calculations. So those of us who genuinely want to understand it, even from a popular perspective, have to be willing to put some effort into studying the basics, just so we have an idea of how to formulate our questions!!

HTH

Its a fair cop..

mark swain wrote:>reasonings.<

Long red line telling me, its incorrect... Spell check, giving reasoning's as correct.. sorry astrolabe ... Is this the same for others?

Mark

mark swain wrote:Is this the same for others?

Most nouns have plural forms ending in s or es.

bystander wrote:Most nouns have plural forms ending in s or es.

Lmao,,, For ''Other'' people doing the spell check... When using the word reasonings and posting on this forum... pmsl

Mark

astrolabe wrote:You will note the use of the word "presumed" in the text but I believe a lot of the ideas come from whatever it is that we now know or can predict from the currently accepted model. It talks of the separation of Gravity as the first phase in the development of our current Universe. At that moment it is believed that time began- and probably not without argument as this Forum can attest. So what before that? The Universe I believe did not come from nothing but came into being as a reaction to something or some catalyst of some kind. Until then everything was, in my understanding, in a state of pure energy and I have no idea whether that means a singularity and if so what size it would have been since there was no space in order to judge size. So singularity could mean a massless point since there was no mass involved, or a homegenous blob held together by Gravity until whatever triggered Gravity's release came along.

Excellent. Thanks astrolabe.. In that last part, you could almost be describing something else.