An akward assumption, please enlighten me

[Geert]

I will make this brief, hope someone will enlighten me

Objects observed at great distances in space seem to have growing speed in which they move from us in accordance to their distance, and in every direction, as stated by the Big Bang theory.
But isn't it a fact that looking further from us we only now receive the light, but the source it came from lays back in time and thus earlier to the beginning of this universe: where the universe was smaller, more dense?
My statement: in the end we are facing in every direction the point where it all expanded from. The infinite smallness seen as universe surrounding object!
A very peculiar universe as it seems we're looking at this way: inside out.

Can't it also be that speeds, proportions of things and intermediate distances we might observe now of those faraway objects are just projections on an outside rim, and are thus irrelevant and not in straight correlation with references nearer to us?
Shouldn't there be a correction to get the real proportions and speeds in the time the source emitted this light?
Otherwise stated: Light which comes from an object and comes converged to our eyes in normal perspective indicates size in relation to it's distance. Normal perspective can't be used here?
This means that speed and proportions which we now observe or measure on these observations are incorrect, are they corrected on this in nowadays observations and speed-estimates?

I have read a lot on this but never got this cleared.
Also I might just have missed it all the time.
Either way I should expect a solution on this from the randi-org members.
If you please..


I'm very curious to your responds

 

[Wudang]

I will make this brief, hope someone will enlighten me

Objects observed at great distances in space seem to have growing speed in which they move from us in accordance to their distance, and in every direction, as stated by the Big Bang theory.
But isn't it a fact that looking further from us we only now receive the light, but the source it came from lays back in time and thus earlier to the beginning of this universe: where the universe was smaller, more dense?
My statement: in the end we are facing in every direction the point where it all expanded from.

I'd say it was better to say that we didn't expand from a point - the point itself expanded - space expanded.

The infinite smallness seen as universe surrounding object!
A very peculiar universe as it seems we're looking at this way: inside out.

I think you need to explain this.

Can't it also be that speeds, proportions of things and intermediate distances we might observe now of those faraway objects are just projections on an outside rim, and are thus irrelevant and not in straight correlation with references nearer to us?

I think you need to explain this as well. Are you proposing something like P H Francis's "reflecting infinity"? And why would it be easier to see these reflections far away than "references nearer to us"?

Shouldn't there be a correction to get the real proportions and speeds in the time the source emitted this light?

Yes it's called cosmology.

Otherwise stated: Light which comes from an object and comes converged to our eyes in normal perspective indicates size in relation to it's distance. Normal perspective can't be used here?

Astronomers tend not to use their eyes these days. They have telescopes and stuff.

This means that speed and proportions which we now observe or measure on these observations are incorrect, are they corrected on this in nowadays observations and speed-estimates?

Yes - they correct for stuff like doppler shift, attenuation and all sorts of stuff that someone who has read a lot would know about.

I have read a lot on this but never got this cleared.
Also I might just have missed it all the time.
Either way I should expect a solution on this from the randi-org members.
If you please..


I'm very curious to your responds

NB this should be in "Science" not Community.

 

[Geert]

Well you almost answered all but a few, thank you Wudang, much obliged already

I will rephrase my question and splice it up more readable, my apologies when it was not all clear to you:

1 Looking outward, whatever direction, is looking at objects in the past
2 In the past the universe was smaller, beginning as a dot - as you so thoroughly reformulated.
3 conclusion: at the outmost surroundings where we start to observe more and more - thanx again: with telescopes and so on referring also this science as cosmology hence - we do not receive light from the farrest end of it at it's biggest but we close in to observe when it was small like a dot.
As a matter of speach we look at it from the inside out because when it was at it's smallest is now seemingly surrounding all our visible universe. Seems like a contradiction doesn't it?
I also stated and asked the community if it's correct to measure proportions of these objects in relation to the known or better sizable objects which are closer (closere references), or must be taken into consideration we're measuring with our standards something where other standards should be used.
I will give an example to explain this further also:
When an asteroid exact relative size of the moon as we observe it from Earth passes behind the moon one could assume for sure the planetoid is bigger than our moon - mind you this is an example.
In reference to a galaxie nearby and a galaxie much much further away whose sizes seem relative equal this assumption could prove otherwise because the galaxy at greater distance at the time it shed it's light some billions years ago could very well be smaller since the entire galaxy was smaller.

Doppler measurements and so on I consider to be not appropiate since observations on objects at these remote areas, as I took notice of, were not in full spectrum but in ultraviolet and quite needed on digital improvements and filtering.
Wil you learn me otherwise when I'm incorrect on this?

Well the other thing that my post was at the wrong entrance on this forum: you're absolutely right, but then again my first post on this great site.
If there'll be a next time I'll surprise you.

Would you also please give me a summary or a link to the theory you mentionned?
I don't tend to be a wellpayed astronomist but very eager to be informed on more on this. Which is as I believe one of the biggest purposes of this site?

Thanks again and still curious for every and furthermore advanced reply

 

[phunk]

Well, we can't see all the way back to the universe when it was that small. The farthest we can look back is to when it was about 300000 years old, when the density and temperature reached the right point for it to become transparent.

 

[Geert]

Thanks Phunk

A view on the very first beginning or not even the first couples of millions of years will always be impossible, since there was nothing clear or defined enough to be seen I reckon, furthermore so widely spread these lichtquanta by now though it seems, but maybe we may conclude this: that they for a short while ago started to arrive at detectable amounts? Another intriguate question.
Nevertheless 300 millons years old the universe we are able to observe now, or the part as exposed to us this way, - as you mention - must definitely be way more dense - and otherwise stretched - than momentarily and in these surroundings.
Back to the question: does't it seem odd that a smaller thing surrounds a muck bigger one and shouldn't there be consequences on estimating proportions, speeds and intermediate distances as we observe at these distances but which are in a way virtual, that is not correspondent with the local environment, our references?

I really haven't a clou in which way things like this are taken in consideration.

I can remember that the first observations of quasars also provoked much astonishment regarding their size, but doesn't this reveal in a way the same?

I'm sure not reinventing the wheel on this but evenso still haven't ever read about these impiclations and would like to be informed, because this triggers me a lot for quite a couple of years.

 

[dlorde]

It is a little confusing when everywhere you look, you're looking back to the early universe, which was really small...

But consider that if you start as an infinitesimal particle in a tiny ball of space-time that is expanding rapidly in all directions, what you see looking around yourself is everything moving away from you in all directions, and the farther out things are, the older you see them. Billions of years later, today, everything is much the same, but a lot cooler and spread out a lot more.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You have to take into account that the light is not only coming from objects that are moving quickly away from us, but they are also travelling across space that is expanding.

I remember reading about a "loophole" in the laws of physics that would allow us to see galaxies moving away from us faster than the speed of light. I don't remember the details, but it seemed plausible insofar as I could understand it.

 

[edd]

Err. Well. Broadly:
Yes, the universe was smaller further away. This is why angular diameter distance is not monotonic.
Speed is a pain when trying to think on cosmological scales. Best advice is to not think and just do what Einstein said we should do. Then things are ok.

Common sense does not apply here.

 

[edd]

Oh by the way - no such thing as a well paid astronomer.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Welcome to the Forum, Geert!

Before going any further, I suggest you read up on the big bang.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Err. Well. Broadly:
Yes, the universe was smaller further away. This is why angular diameter distance is not monotonic.
Speed is a pain when trying to think on cosmological scales. Best advice is to not think and just do what Einstein said we should do. Then things are ok.
Common sense does not apply here.

Exactly. One of the biggest mistakes people make is assuming that the universe conforms itself to our notions of "common sense" or how we think things should be.