Yes, I already responded to the other comment. Summarily, I don’t find their argument convincing.
To add, it’s not surprising that everything is moving away from us. To use the other commenter’s balloon analogy, as the balloon expands, so do the circumference and surface area. So any two points on that surface will be moving away from each other as it does so.
It’s also not surprising that the cosmic microwave background radiation appears relatively uniform. 14 billion years of expansion, and we can only observe or “neighborhood” of the universe, mind-bogglingly large as even that is. 14 billion years of moving on a more or less stable trajectory. We can’t see far enough backwards to view the origin point.
Also, if the background radiation came from the big bang, then it would have outpaced us as our galaxy slowed down and the radiation continued moving at the speed of light. This suggests that the background radiation we witness was emitted after the energy that coalesced into our galaxy, and is just now catching up/surpassing us. Unless it’s reflecting off of something further outward, and on it’s way back.
Is there any known pattern to the actual direction of cosmic background radiation? Is it aligned in any way or more or less random?
The CMBR was the first light that could ever actually go a long distance in the universe, as before that the universe was opaque plasma. When the universe cooled to a threshold it the. Became transparent to light. This light was released in all directions at all points, which is why we still see it today. It will be detectable until the universe’s expansion speeds up to a point where it outpaces the speed of light.
There are some patterns in the CMBR but only due to density fluctuations. A fascinating topic to look into is the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. Small quantum density variations that were expanded rapidly as the big bang started going into overdrive that have shaped the universe on an immense scale.
I don’t have time to answer every question you have sadly, and I’m just someone who really enjoys learning about this stuff in their free time. The channel I mentioned has videos on all of this. I highly suggest you start watching those if you actually want an in depth understanding of this.
You’re making intuitive assumptions based in what you currently believe you know. Some of the concepts you’re using to framework your thinking simply don’t apply.
That link doesn’t address directional parallelism.
And if you take my willingness to express a gap in my knowledge as evidence that I just don’t know what I’m talking about and that everything I say should be discarded, then I don’t know what to tell you. Do you have perfect knowledge, free of any gaps? Or are you simply unwilling to admit to having gaps?
If I was willing to admit to one gap in my knowledge, then why do you think that means everything else I say must be bullshit? Seems kinda strange…
Anyway, my main point is that even the experts have major knowledge gaps when it comes to theoretical astrophysics. And they are very aware of that, and willing to acknowledge the incompleteness of their knowledge.
I was simply pointing out some of the errors in the “best answers we have,” explaining why they need to be rethought. If you won’t even consider my actual point simply because I freely admit to not knowing whether cosmic background radiation aligns or has a random trajectory, then this conversation might as well be over.
I have considered your point. I then addressed the framework you seem to be using to build that conclusion. You’ve assumed axioms from what you see as related disciplines are still useful in a context you’re admittedly ignorant of. I suggest that familiarizing yourself with domains on which you are ignorant will provide the answers you’re looking for.
It’ll also explain why others already familiar with the topic find your reasoning falls short or isn’t interesting enough to meaningfully engage with.
Parallelism is relevant. If the background radiation happens to be aligned in parallel fashion rather than at random trajectories, then that indicates something different than if they’re moving at random. If it wasn’t relevant, I wouldn’t have asked it.
And just because I ask one question about something specific, which is apparently niche enough that the wikipedia page didn’t even address it, doesn’t mean I’m ignorant on the whole topic. You’re too afraid to ask questions you don’t know the answer to, because you’re afraid it might make you seem ignorant. So you don’t think outside the box, you just rehash the pop science that’s been packaged for you nice and neatly. That’s why you don’t find my reasoning interesting enough to meaningfully engage with.
I’m familiar with the pop science, and that’s why I ask questions that go beyond the scope of what typically gets packaged and presented for us laypeople. If that makes me more ignorant than people who read the pop science and then don’t ask questions, then whatever…
Yes, I already responded to the other comment. Summarily, I don’t find their argument convincing.
To add, it’s not surprising that everything is moving away from us. To use the other commenter’s balloon analogy, as the balloon expands, so do the circumference and surface area. So any two points on that surface will be moving away from each other as it does so.
It’s also not surprising that the cosmic microwave background radiation appears relatively uniform. 14 billion years of expansion, and we can only observe or “neighborhood” of the universe, mind-bogglingly large as even that is. 14 billion years of moving on a more or less stable trajectory. We can’t see far enough backwards to view the origin point.
Also, if the background radiation came from the big bang, then it would have outpaced us as our galaxy slowed down and the radiation continued moving at the speed of light. This suggests that the background radiation we witness was emitted after the energy that coalesced into our galaxy, and is just now catching up/surpassing us. Unless it’s reflecting off of something further outward, and on it’s way back.
Is there any known pattern to the actual direction of cosmic background radiation? Is it aligned in any way or more or less random?
The CMBR was the first light that could ever actually go a long distance in the universe, as before that the universe was opaque plasma. When the universe cooled to a threshold it the. Became transparent to light. This light was released in all directions at all points, which is why we still see it today. It will be detectable until the universe’s expansion speeds up to a point where it outpaces the speed of light.
There are some patterns in the CMBR but only due to density fluctuations. A fascinating topic to look into is the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. Small quantum density variations that were expanded rapidly as the big bang started going into overdrive that have shaped the universe on an immense scale.
I don’t have time to answer every question you have sadly, and I’m just someone who really enjoys learning about this stuff in their free time. The channel I mentioned has videos on all of this. I highly suggest you start watching those if you actually want an in depth understanding of this.
The way you’re talking about the CMB and the questions you’re asking about it suggest that you’re unfamiliar with the topic’s particulars. I’d start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
You’re making intuitive assumptions based in what you currently believe you know. Some of the concepts you’re using to framework your thinking simply don’t apply.
That link doesn’t address directional parallelism.
And if you take my willingness to express a gap in my knowledge as evidence that I just don’t know what I’m talking about and that everything I say should be discarded, then I don’t know what to tell you. Do you have perfect knowledge, free of any gaps? Or are you simply unwilling to admit to having gaps?
If I was willing to admit to one gap in my knowledge, then why do you think that means everything else I say must be bullshit? Seems kinda strange…
Anyway, my main point is that even the experts have major knowledge gaps when it comes to theoretical astrophysics. And they are very aware of that, and willing to acknowledge the incompleteness of their knowledge.
I was simply pointing out some of the errors in the “best answers we have,” explaining why they need to be rethought. If you won’t even consider my actual point simply because I freely admit to not knowing whether cosmic background radiation aligns or has a random trajectory, then this conversation might as well be over.
Because parallelism is not relevant.
I did not suggest you ought to discard anything.
I have considered your point. I then addressed the framework you seem to be using to build that conclusion. You’ve assumed axioms from what you see as related disciplines are still useful in a context you’re admittedly ignorant of. I suggest that familiarizing yourself with domains on which you are ignorant will provide the answers you’re looking for.
It’ll also explain why others already familiar with the topic find your reasoning falls short or isn’t interesting enough to meaningfully engage with.
Parallelism is relevant. If the background radiation happens to be aligned in parallel fashion rather than at random trajectories, then that indicates something different than if they’re moving at random. If it wasn’t relevant, I wouldn’t have asked it.
And just because I ask one question about something specific, which is apparently niche enough that the wikipedia page didn’t even address it, doesn’t mean I’m ignorant on the whole topic. You’re too afraid to ask questions you don’t know the answer to, because you’re afraid it might make you seem ignorant. So you don’t think outside the box, you just rehash the pop science that’s been packaged for you nice and neatly. That’s why you don’t find my reasoning interesting enough to meaningfully engage with.
I’m familiar with the pop science, and that’s why I ask questions that go beyond the scope of what typically gets packaged and presented for us laypeople. If that makes me more ignorant than people who read the pop science and then don’t ask questions, then whatever…