Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > General Chat
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #21  
Old 19-04-2023, 12:55 PM
gaseous's Avatar
gaseous (Patrick)
Registered User

gaseous is offline
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonius View Post
If you take the current rate of expansion and perform regression analysis you end up with the big bang. BUT this makes the rather big assumption that the universe's expansion has always accelerated at that rate.


Maybe the universe expanded differently when it was younger? Maybe the laws of physics change over time? There's no reason they have to be static. We assume that they are, but over timescales that big, could we detect the difference? (Or maybe we're just beginning to, with the JWST).


I'm the opposite of that guy from the A-Team. I *like it when a plan doesn't come together - because that's where the interesting stuff happens.


:-)

Yes, and there are still two (at least) schools of thought/calculations regarding the expansion rate of the universe, and their margins for error don't overlap, so there would appear to be something being missed somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 19-04-2023, 02:25 PM
SB (Chris)
Registered User

SB is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW
Posts: 290
They say we are looking at galaxies at a time of the early universe. however if we came from the same big bang then surely the light from those ‘early galaxies’ would have passed us ages ago? Did we expand from the same point?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 19-04-2023, 02:33 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,108
Err.. Not quite.. You forgot about Inflation..
Space expanded with speed much faster than light, and that carried us away from the rest of the early universe. That is how the light from those places is reaching us now.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 20-04-2023, 06:47 AM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan View Post
Err.. Not quite.. You forgot about Inflation..
Space expanded with speed much faster than light, and that carried us away from the rest of the early universe. That is how the light from those places is reaching us now.
Good morning Bojan thank you for contributing to this thread.

I hope you and yours are all good.

Are you able to tell us the size of the Universe immediately prior to inflation and immediately after?

Alex
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 20-04-2023, 07:27 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave View Post
Good morning Bojan thank you for contributing to this thread.
I hope you and yours are all good.
Are you able to tell us the size of the Universe immediately prior to inflation and immediately after?
Alex

Hi Alex,

I am OK :-)

Have a look here...
Universe was ø10e-29 metres before and ~ø9 metres when inflation ended.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 20-04-2023, 08:47 AM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,108
Also, see Wikipedia here.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 20-04-2023, 01:47 PM
xelasnave's Avatar
xelasnave
Gravity does not Suck

xelasnave is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan View Post
Also, see Wikipedia here.
Thanks Bojan...what I looking for was your personal description that you might give to a grand child or an ignorant layman using fruit

Alex
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 20-04-2023, 06:58 PM
Constant's Avatar
Constant (David)
Registered User

Constant is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: The Shire
Posts: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan View Post
BTW...

I found the Sabine Hossenfelder lectures on the subject very interesting..
Yes, she's an outstanding communicaror not shy of dipping into some harder science, she's no Neil Degrasse Tyson. In my humble opinion we've too many Tysons, even our wonderful Dr Carl falls into the "light" camp. They've both done great things, however as the general level of science literacy improves we need more Sabine's.
DR Sagan will always be on a different level as he did it first, capturing generations while inspiring younger science minds.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 08:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement