Dont try to tell me those 2 blackholes that are coming at each other arent moving at the speed of gravity or close to it near impact, they have to be dont they? Also they wouldnt just "stick" like 2 piece of clay coming together, no. You can however imagine that any matter coming off would be pulled back rather quickly do to the large gravitron concentration. The question is, is gravity strong enough to pull it all back? Just like the big bang inflation theory complimented the big bang theory itself. That theory says that matter almost got pulled back in after the big bang.
So how many theories is that now? I kinda like this last one now I think about it. But it eludes the begining of time. If such an collision event did take place we may never know when the universe started. We just know when it was all mixed up again.
When the Universe started and how old is the Universe Really? (complicated)
This is funny when I hear people say they think the Universe is 13 or so billion
years old.
Now why would they think that? Well because the farthest galaxy visible to them
is 13 billion light years away.
I assume they are looking at it towards the presumed big bang origin. Theres
a big difference. Say we are looking at a galaxy where it was 13 billion years
ago, 13 billion light years away..exactly in the direction of the big bang or
point of origin...so that we are basically lined up with it and the big bang..
Ok now say that galaxy and its position is roughly where we came from also at
some point in time...Lets put a varible X on that position in space and its
13 billion light years away, we must be moving at the speed of light. Anything
wrong with this? Oh course there is! We are not moving at the speed of light
for one. Over how much distance and time did it take matter to form the milky
way? Same thing with that one. The fact that it is a galaxy tells you it came
from a much distance point of origin naturally as did everything and we have
to add that to 13 billion at least.
If we are moving at the speed of light, which we are not, but say we are for math purposes, to observe a galaxy 13 billion light years away that only means 13 billion years have past since we were at that point of space. It does not mean the Universe is 13 billion years old, its more like 13 hundred billion years old laugh, your guess is as good as mine. But anyway, if lets say that galaxy out there is mature then we can assume it came from a much distance point of origin. The only way we could say the universe is 13 billion years old, is if we are ~[moving at the speed of light] and the observed composition of matter from the presumed big bang origin goes from loose matter 13 billion LY out to mature galaxies with a few LY out and to us. Then of course there is Still the galaxies beyond us and the big bang which you would have to add to 13 billion. Its an absolute impossibility that the universe is only 13 billion years old.
Now on the flipside lets say that galaxy is being observed away from the big bang and us...So we would be between the big bang and it which is 13 billion light years out. I cant really tell you how old the universe is again but it is still not 13 billion years not by a long shot.
The exact age of the universe depends on quite a few things, lets take a few. Number one, is the Inflation theory that supports the big bang fact or fiction? If fact, then we are talking about a much older universe if it is fiction. Number 2, age is time, you need to have a point of reference to time to be able to tell how old something is. One that note time on the matter that formed what we are living on today has not always been constant. Some matter was moving faster thus time was slower, some matter could have been "out there" and we caught up to it ect. eventually time on the matter we are living came together to form our reality but to put an age on the Universe from our perspective would be wrong. If you want to bring in "God" looking down on the universe then we could put a figure on it from his perspective I suppose. Until then its pretty much pointless..from my point of view. But
Whats some math anyway you ask, well for one how fast are we moving relative to the big bang..and deep space? Take our speed assume its always been constant that(which it has not been), factor in a hundred other things and figure how long it would take us to travel 13 billion light years out. At that point we could observe a galaxy 13 billion light years away.
Heres a question, How did we get separated 13 billion LY out from another galaxy
if everything came from one point of origin? The idea of the outter matter being
sent out farther/faster makes sense in imagination, but does it account for
that great of distance? Wouldnt it be better to assume that alot of matter was
already far out there?
Would the speed of the outter galaxies help us here? Yes if the outter galaxies
are moving considerably slower than the core ones then this may be the case,
if however the core ones are moving relativly the same speed and not forgeting
the inflation theory then they must have come from the same area correct?
Just in Time
I love theorizing about time, its one of those things that crazy theories come from and the fact its all tied in together with space and matter just adds to the confusion of trying to explain it to someone else. Thats actually the hard part, explaining what you think you know to someone else. If you laugh at that your not alone, because time is all perception, I dont really like the word when talking about physics. Because time is really just velocity or motion. The speed at which something moves is time explained.
If you asked someone what velocity it is now they would look at you strange. Oh wait you got a watch, its x velocity.
But if you really want time, your talking Earth time, what about deep space time?
Its interesting to say in theory if you remove yourself from Earth and place
yourself stationary in deep space, stationary to what exactly you say, well
thats a good question. Suppose you substract the motion of the our galaxy and
Earth ect and you calculate it so that the number equals zero, zero we will
call stationary. Now you ask subtract our motion relative to what? Same question,
but Ill answer it with relative to the big bang and other galaxies motion according
to the big bang. Ok so now we have our zero. What would your watch read? I dont
know either, but Ill tell you this, if it has a positive reading at all, then
your not really stationary relative to the big picture are you? Wrong, the matter
that makes up you and your watch are in motion. Your watch is made of atoms
that are moving therefore time must be moving. Ok forget the watch, thats all
mechanical and complicated.
What would the speed at which you speak be like? Would you talk really fast?
Really sloooow? Compared to the rate of speach you have on Earth your speach
would be significantly faster that you have slowed down...That might not make
sense but remember, time slows down the faster you go, so the opposite can be
true.
Now to you, would you feel like you were talking faster? Thats interesting, and you might have heard or think that you wouldnt feel like it, but Im thinking you would definatly notice. I cant prove it, or can I?
If we go back to our spaceship, remember when I related time as the ability
of an atom to make a cycle? The more force exerted on it the harder it has to
try to make a cycle, thus time slows down. Even our relatively slow movement
through deep space there is a restriction however minute present, and thus time
is affected. When you remove yourself from our movement and place yourself "stationary"
in deep space you remove X amount of restriction.
Therefore you Would notice. Just as Gforce pulls you back into your chair you
cant move well, the opposite is true.
What about the gravity felt on Earth? Thats not really what were focusing on but it is a varible, just apply the same amount and leave it at that.
Back up top to the sentence ~[moving at the speed of light]
You should know this already but what the hell, if your moving that fast that
galaxies light never catches up to you. ummmm hmmm, wait a minute. Is this perhaps
the reason we cant see beyond 13 billion light years out and there appears to
be a void? So basically we have to wait for light to catch up..there is or shall
say was something there it just hasnt caught up yet.. Ok enough ;) But really
is that the reason? I dont see why not..
If the matter that we are on was accelerated to the [speed of light] away from the point of origin, light from the stuff we surpased eventually has to catch up once we slow down. I dont really want to go into that anymore I think Ive exhausted the big bang thing enough today, but Ill keep it in mind.
Link of the Day
http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/
Fri May 4 2003
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1950403.stm
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2002/10/text
I like the second method used here, where if all matter came from one point of origin some of that matter is in our our galaxy. In a sense all we have to do is find the oldest matter in our galaxy. That they believe they have found and it dates to around 13 billion years, the same number they get when they reverse the rate of expansion.
I dont know why I cant get the idea of, if you can see back 13 billion LY then calculate our movement and see how long it would take us to travel 13 billion LY out to where we are. Doesnt that make sense? I dont know if it does or not but thats like saying the universe is well beyond 13 billion years old. I know what that goes along now, that goes according to a whitehole type model where theres a constant flow of matter from one point over a great deal of time, instead of one big bang.. OK. But that would also mean, their would be matter in our galaxy well over 13 billion years old too. Hopefully that makes sense, Im learning as I go and maybe you are too. Thats kinda how it goes, they dont tell you why in exact detail you have to figure it out on your own so that it makes sense to you.
Link of the Day
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/letters/
