If the Universe was created by the Big Bang how did it blow a thin sheet Universe? Did the Big Bang have an epicenter?
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 15 2009, 04:20 PM)
If the Universe was created by the Big Bang how did it blow a thin sheet Universe? Did the Big Bang have an epicenter?
Our Solar System is thin/flat ... our Galaxy happens to be thin/flat ... However, every graphic representation I've seen of the known universe shows it as anything but flat/thin. Perhaps if we could really visualize enough of universe (on an unimaginable large scale) we'd find it relatively thin/flat. But for now I'm pretty sure that existing observations support BBT.
I do however see the reason for the first question. As to the 2nd ... if there was a big bang then of course it had an epicenter.
Our Solar System is thin/flat ... our Galaxy happens to be thin/flat ... However, every graphic representation I've seen of the known universe shows it as anything but flat/thin. Perhaps if we could really visualize enough of universe (on an unimaginable large scale) we'd find it relatively thin/flat. But for now I'm pretty sure that existing observations support BBT.
I do however see the reason for the first question. As to the 2nd ... if there was a big bang then of course it had an epicenter.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 04:45 PM)
... if there was a big bang then of course it had an epicenter.
No, it did not, you need to read on the exact description of the BB. It is not akin to an explosion, only the very naive think that way.
No, it did not, you need to read on the exact description of the BB. It is not akin to an explosion, only the very naive think that way.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 04:59 PM)
No, it did not, you need to read on the exact description of the BB. It is not akin to an explosion, only the very naive think that way.
If the Big Bang originated in an infinitely small yet infinitely dense "place" ... then commonly that "place" would be referred to as the epicenter. Besides that, an epicenter does not necessarily have to connote an "explosion".
Like so much else in physics then I'd be left to assume that the word "epicenter" means something other than the common parlance for the term or more likely its a term that generally wouldn't apply to physics in any sense ... since it is less than exact.
And yes ... those two "paragraphs" contain some redundancy.
If the Big Bang originated in an infinitely small yet infinitely dense "place" ... then commonly that "place" would be referred to as the epicenter. Besides that, an epicenter does not necessarily have to connote an "explosion".
Like so much else in physics then I'd be left to assume that the word "epicenter" means something other than the common parlance for the term or more likely its a term that generally wouldn't apply to physics in any sense ... since it is less than exact.
And yes ... those two "paragraphs" contain some redundancy.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 08:17 PM)
If the Big Bang originated in an infinitely small yet infinitely dense "place"
...but it didn't.
In the most common models of BB, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with high energy density, high temperatures and high pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10^(−37) seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.
No epicenter....., BB happened uniformly throughout the space.
...but it didn't.
In the most common models of BB, the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with high energy density, high temperatures and high pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10^(−37) seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.
No epicenter....., BB happened uniformly throughout the space.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 08:19 PM)
...but it didn't.
Then please supply (as you say) "the exact description of the BB". While you work on that would me re-reading the Wiki definition suffice?
LOL. I quoted you before you added the Wiki definition. To which I'd reply that you are confusing the initial state (which is undefined by BB) with inflation. I'll grant that "inflation" had no "epicenter" if that is sufficient.
Then please supply (as you say) "the exact description of the BB". While you work on that would me re-reading the Wiki definition suffice?
LOL. I quoted you before you added the Wiki definition. To which I'd reply that you are confusing the initial state (which is undefined by BB) with inflation. I'll grant that "inflation" had no "epicenter" if that is sufficient.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 08:27 PM)
To which I'd reply that you are confusing the initial state (which is undefined by BB) with inflation. I'll grant that "inflation" had no "epicenter" if that is sufficient.
Umm, no. I see that you persist.
Food for thought: since CMBR is the remnant of BB, why there is no center for it?
Umm, no. I see that you persist.
Food for thought: since CMBR is the remnant of BB, why there is no center for it?
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 08:34 PM)
Umm, no. I see that you persist.
Food for thought: since CMBR is the remnant of BB, why there is no center for it?
Inflation. Homogeneity. Isotropicness.
Regardless of your assertions otherwise (likely just intended to shut me up since I'm an admitted neophyte) ... the BB had a finite beginning ...
Lest we forget ... Inflation occurred AFTER the initial state. The initial state is undefined. The struggle to define the initial state is the point of trying to unite the 4 forces.
Food for thought: since CMBR is the remnant of BB, why there is no center for it?
Inflation. Homogeneity. Isotropicness.
Regardless of your assertions otherwise (likely just intended to shut me up since I'm an admitted neophyte) ... the BB had a finite beginning ...
Lest we forget ... Inflation occurred AFTER the initial state. The initial state is undefined. The struggle to define the initial state is the point of trying to unite the 4 forces.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 08:44 PM)
Inflation. Homogeneity. Isotropicness.
Regardless of your assertions otherwise (likely just intended to shut me up since I'm an admitted neophyte) ... the BB had a finite beginning ...
Not a good answer, if you reversed time you should be able to get to a single point in space. But you can't. Because BB wasn't localized in space.
Regardless of your assertions otherwise (likely just intended to shut me up since I'm an admitted neophyte) ... the BB had a finite beginning ...
Not a good answer, if you reversed time you should be able to get to a single point in space. But you can't. Because BB wasn't localized in space.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 04:44 PM)
Inflation. Homogeneity. Isotropicness.
Regardless of your assertions otherwise (likely just intended to shut me up since I'm an admitted neophyte) ... the BB had a finite beginning ...
But asking about the center is like asking where inside a balloon it was inflated from. It's not a perfect example, but it serves the purpose.
Regardless of your assertions otherwise (likely just intended to shut me up since I'm an admitted neophyte) ... the BB had a finite beginning ...
But asking about the center is like asking where inside a balloon it was inflated from. It's not a perfect example, but it serves the purpose.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 15 2009, 08:47 PM)
But asking about the center is like asking where inside a balloon it was inflated from. It's not a perfect example, but it serves the purpose.
Nobody asked about "the center". Someone asked about an "epicenter" (not me) ... but I did say that as a term I assume it doesn't apply to physics.
And once again ... a finite beginning (which BB does postulate) strongly implies an initial state that was in one place ... I've got no real issue with calling it an "epicenter" since the word is broadly descriptive of any number of finite things.
And yes ... I fully "get" the balloon analogy. It's used to describe Inflation. Not the initial state ... which BBT does not fully address.
Nobody asked about "the center". Someone asked about an "epicenter" (not me) ... but I did say that as a term I assume it doesn't apply to physics.
And once again ... a finite beginning (which BB does postulate) strongly implies an initial state that was in one place ... I've got no real issue with calling it an "epicenter" since the word is broadly descriptive of any number of finite things.
And yes ... I fully "get" the balloon analogy. It's used to describe Inflation. Not the initial state ... which BBT does not fully address.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 08:46 PM)
Not a good answer, if you reversed time you should be able to get to a single point in space. But you can't. Because BB wasn't localized in space.
And we're suddenly on the verge of having one of those conversations where I say ... if there was no space then there was no time ... and since our datasets investigating BBT say 13.7B years ago then there is a major disconnect. You can't on one hand say there was no spatial localization (which I'd agree with) and on the other say it all happened 13.7B years ago.
It's all a bit specious isn't it?
Why don't we just agree that we're talking about things that happened after the initial state eh? That'd make me a happy camper.
And we're suddenly on the verge of having one of those conversations where I say ... if there was no space then there was no time ... and since our datasets investigating BBT say 13.7B years ago then there is a major disconnect. You can't on one hand say there was no spatial localization (which I'd agree with) and on the other say it all happened 13.7B years ago.
It's all a bit specious isn't it?
Why don't we just agree that we're talking about things that happened after the initial state eh? That'd make me a happy camper.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 08:51 PM)
And once again ... a finite beginning (which BB does postulate) strongly implies an initial state that was in one place ...
One more time: it doesn't.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 09:29 PM)
One more time: it doesn't.
It's an implication by virtue of the non-defined state. Or are you saying BBT defines the initial state? Treat the last question as rhetorical if you like. This whole "flat universe" assertion/question isn't mine. I'll allow the thread starter continue the discussion should he choose.
It's an implication by virtue of the non-defined state. Or are you saying BBT defines the initial state? Treat the last question as rhetorical if you like. This whole "flat universe" assertion/question isn't mine. I'll allow the thread starter continue the discussion should he choose.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 09:51 PM)
It's an implication by virtue of the non-defined state. Or are you saying BBT defines the initial state?
I never managed to teach a crackpot science. Nor did I manage to get a crackpot to admit he's wrong. Doesn't look as if the tradition is going to be broken with you.
I never managed to teach a crackpot science. Nor did I manage to get a crackpot to admit he's wrong. Doesn't look as if the tradition is going to be broken with you.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 10:08 PM)
I never managed to teach a crackpot science. Nor did I manage to get a crackpot to admit he's wrong. Doesn't look as if the chain is going to be broken with you.
That's amazing. With your papal-like patience I'd imagine you'd have accomplished it once. I hope your failure along those lines doesn't keep you awake at night. Perhaps if you rededicate yourself to the effort then one day you'll succeed.
That's amazing. With your papal-like patience I'd imagine you'd have accomplished it once. I hope your failure along those lines doesn't keep you awake at night. Perhaps if you rededicate yourself to the effort then one day you'll succeed.
Nor did I manage to get a crackpot to admit he's wrong. Doesn't look as if the chain is going to be broken with you.
Ah ... So now I've graduated from neophyte (my definition) to crackpot. Thanks. You didn't mean it that way but nevertheless I feel complimented. And of course by "complimented" I mean "unecessarily and unjustly derided for the twisted simple pleasures of an arse".
That's amazing. With your papal-like patience I'd imagine you'd have accomplished it once.
Nah, this is what makes crackpots ...crackpots!
I would be thrilled if you were the first one to prove me wrong by saying: "Hey, I understand why my position is incorrect, I am willing to read and learn more on the subject and I will be back when I know more".
QUOTE
I never managed to teach a crackpot science.
That's amazing. With your papal-like patience I'd imagine you'd have accomplished it once. I hope your failure along those lines doesn't keep you awake at night. Perhaps if you rededicate yourself to the effort then one day you'll succeed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I never managed to teach a crackpot science. |
That's amazing. With your papal-like patience I'd imagine you'd have accomplished it once. I hope your failure along those lines doesn't keep you awake at night. Perhaps if you rededicate yourself to the effort then one day you'll succeed.
Nor did I manage to get a crackpot to admit he's wrong. Doesn't look as if the chain is going to be broken with you.
Ah ... So now I've graduated from neophyte (my definition) to crackpot. Thanks. You didn't mean it that way but nevertheless I feel complimented. And of course by "complimented" I mean "unecessarily and unjustly derided for the twisted simple pleasures of an arse".
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 15 2009, 10:18 PM)
That's amazing. With your papal-like patience I'd imagine you'd have accomplished it once.
Nah, this is what makes crackpots ...crackpots!
I would be thrilled if you were the first one to prove me wrong by saying: "Hey, I understand why my position is incorrect, I am willing to read and learn more on the subject and I will be back when I know more".
trout
"Hey, I understand why your position is correct, I have read more on the subject and realize the BB could not have an epicenter in a flat Universe and CMBR being uniform".
When it was first thought up by the Priest they thought it had an epicenter but were naive. Now we know the Universe can't be flat with their original ideas. So it must have happened all over like you said even if you did not explain what all over meant as far as the original size.
"Hey, I understand why your position is correct, I have read more on the subject and realize the BB could not have an epicenter in a flat Universe and CMBR being uniform".
When it was first thought up by the Priest they thought it had an epicenter but were naive. Now we know the Universe can't be flat with their original ideas. So it must have happened all over like you said even if you did not explain what all over meant as far as the original size.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 15 2009, 11:31 PM)
even if you did not explain what all over meant as far as the original size.
Well, I'd say a very small nugget myself.
Well, I'd say a very small nugget myself.
Uaa and Trout: The BB did occur at "all points" in space, not a single one because it was space that was expanding - not something that was expanding into space, you could say that because the universe was at zero size that it occurred at that one place, I wouldn't but someone might. The BB certainly did happen at a finite time. We know this because you can trace the expansion backwards and you eventually get to a point where the size of the universe (spatially) is zero. Obviously, GR doesn't fully describe that point and there must have been some quantum gravity effect that means the universe formed from a big bounce or the collision of branes or something else. It doesn't matter - there was an event that started the expansion of the universe from a very small size.
Also, there are a few places where Trout is wrong, for example:
The CMB is actually a remnant of the plasma to gas of atoms phase transition that occurred roughly 300,000 years after the big bang. There is still no center because everywhere was in thermal equilibrium so it occurred at about the same time everywhere.
How does this contradict the statement that CMBR is a remnant of BB and that it has no center?
So the conclusion is that you're both wrong. Welcome to the happy world of theoretical physics - where smart people say wrong things every day.
Nonsense.
Also, there are a few places where Trout is wrong, for example:
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 08:34 PM)
Food for thought: since CMBR is the remnant of BB, why there is no center for it?
The CMB is actually a remnant of the plasma to gas of atoms phase transition that occurred roughly 300,000 years after the big bang. There is still no center because everywhere was in thermal equilibrium so it occurred at about the same time everywhere.
It's speculated there might be a cosmic gravitational wave background that would go right back to the BB, but we need to have a good way to detect gravitational waves before we can make use of it.
So the conclusion is that you're both wrong. Welcome to the happy world of theoretical physics - where smart people say wrong things every day.
The CMB is actually a remnant of the plasma to gas of atoms phase transition that occurred roughly 300,000 years after the big bang. There is still no center because everywhere was in thermal equilibrium so it occurred at about the same time everywhere.
It's speculated there might be a cosmic gravitational wave background that would go right back to the BB, but we need to have a good way to detect gravitational waves before we can make use of it.
So the conclusion is that you're both wrong. Welcome to the happy world of theoretical physics - where smart people say wrong things every day.
QUOTE (prometheus+Oct 16 2009, 06:40 AM)
The CMB is actually a remnant of the plasma to gas of atoms phase transition that occurred roughly 300,000 years after the big bang. There is still no center because everywhere was in thermal equilibrium so it occurred at about the same time everywhere.
How does this contradict the statement that CMBR is a remnant of BB and that it has no center?
QUOTE
So the conclusion is that you're both wrong. Welcome to the happy world of theoretical physics - where smart people say wrong things every day.
Nonsense.
It is interesting that you all believe that the universe had no center and yet you keep making reference to the start of the universe with respect to time.
All observation and evidence shows that all things in the universe are the same time distance from the start, the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is the idea description of the start of the universe. What else would you call something that started from zero physical size to the physical size today and is still moving outward from the start at a rate equal to the speed of light? I think that any matter that is moving at a rate equal to the speed of light, from a center point, must be considered an explosion.
In all of known physics where has it been shown, that space is expandable? It is seen that all objects may move through space but it is never seen that you are able to expand the space between two objects.
In desperation, the anti-God people came up with this stupid concept of the ability of space to expand. It is clear that the universe started from nothing and was created by God. The point source of that creation is the Big Bang. The universe was created in a firmament of infinite dimensions. Space and time being two of those dimensions.
All that is in the universe has moved outward from the Big Bang in the time dimension. This is why you are always able to reference all actions in the universe to the start. When a measure of distant object is made it is seen that the transition is in the magnitude of the speed of light outward from the source, the Big Bang.
Since the hand of God is the creator of the universe, those that deny this source will never understand the nature of this creation. This is why you have dumb ideas around that make no logical sense.
All observation and evidence shows that all things in the universe are the same time distance from the start, the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is the idea description of the start of the universe. What else would you call something that started from zero physical size to the physical size today and is still moving outward from the start at a rate equal to the speed of light? I think that any matter that is moving at a rate equal to the speed of light, from a center point, must be considered an explosion.
In all of known physics where has it been shown, that space is expandable? It is seen that all objects may move through space but it is never seen that you are able to expand the space between two objects.
In desperation, the anti-God people came up with this stupid concept of the ability of space to expand. It is clear that the universe started from nothing and was created by God. The point source of that creation is the Big Bang. The universe was created in a firmament of infinite dimensions. Space and time being two of those dimensions.
All that is in the universe has moved outward from the Big Bang in the time dimension. This is why you are always able to reference all actions in the universe to the start. When a measure of distant object is made it is seen that the transition is in the magnitude of the speed of light outward from the source, the Big Bang.
Since the hand of God is the creator of the universe, those that deny this source will never understand the nature of this creation. This is why you have dumb ideas around that make no logical sense.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 16 2009, 07:18 AM)
How does this contradict the statement that CMBR is a remnant of BB and that it has no center?
In some sense, everything is a remnant of the big bang. The CMB is not directly linked to the BB in the way that a gravitational wave background would be - there was no CMB from t = 0 to t = 300,000 years which is when it was formed. The CMB doesn't have a centre as I said before, but it's not for the reason that it comes from the BB which has no centre.
In some sense, everything is a remnant of the big bang. The CMB is not directly linked to the BB in the way that a gravitational wave background would be - there was no CMB from t = 0 to t = 300,000 years which is when it was formed. The CMB doesn't have a centre as I said before, but it's not for the reason that it comes from the BB which has no centre.
prometheus,
What caused the BB to form a sheet Universe instead of a sphere Universe?
Was the outer space of the BB different from the inter space of the BB?
t=0, I do not understand the point. From the point what size do we consider the epicenter? 13.6 billion years, 6.8 billion years, 300,000 years?
What caused the BB to form a sheet Universe instead of a sphere Universe?
Was the outer space of the BB different from the inter space of the BB?
t=0, I do not understand the point. From the point what size do we consider the epicenter? 13.6 billion years, 6.8 billion years, 300,000 years?
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 16 2009, 11:28 AM)
What caused the BB to form a sheet Universe instead of a sphere Universe?
Yet again you have chosen to misrepresent a scientific theory.
Yet again you have chosen to misrepresent a scientific theory.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 16 2009, 03:28 PM)
prometheus,
Yes?
Yes?
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 16 2009, 03:28 PM)
What caused the BB to form a sheet Universe instead of a sphere Universe?
You're misunderstanding the difference between a sphere and a ball. I should clarify that I am not a mathematician, I am a physicist so what I say may not be strictly true in the mathematical sense. Think in 3 dimensions - what you are thinking of as a sphere (a basketball or soccer ball, depending on your country of origin) is actually what I would call a ball. A 3 - ball is the three dimensional volume that has a spherical surface. Note that geometrically a ball is flat with a boundary. You can see this very easily by considering a 2 - ball (a disk). The surface of a 3 - ball is a curved surface called a 2 - sphere, likewise, the surface of a 2 - ball (disk) is a 1 - sphere (a circle). The difference here is that a sphere has constant curvature while the curvature of the ball is zero.
In the case of a flat FRW universe the universe is topologically a 3 ball x time, with the radius of the 3 ball time dependent.
Was the outer space of the BB different from the inter space of the BB?
You've been hanging around here long enough to know the answer to this - there was no outside the big bang, just like there is no outside the universe now.
t=0, I do not understand the point. From the point what size do we consider the epicenter? 13.6 billion years, 6.8 billion years, 300,000 years?
As I said, the radius of the 3 - ball is time dependent, and it is growing. If you wind back the clock it's easy to see that the radius of the ball will shrink and eventually get to zero. That is the point where t = 0 in cosmological terms. There is no spatial centre to the expansion as it is not matter expanding - it is space that's expanding.
You're misunderstanding the difference between a sphere and a ball. I should clarify that I am not a mathematician, I am a physicist so what I say may not be strictly true in the mathematical sense. Think in 3 dimensions - what you are thinking of as a sphere (a basketball or soccer ball, depending on your country of origin) is actually what I would call a ball. A 3 - ball is the three dimensional volume that has a spherical surface. Note that geometrically a ball is flat with a boundary. You can see this very easily by considering a 2 - ball (a disk). The surface of a 3 - ball is a curved surface called a 2 - sphere, likewise, the surface of a 2 - ball (disk) is a 1 - sphere (a circle). The difference here is that a sphere has constant curvature while the curvature of the ball is zero.
In the case of a flat FRW universe the universe is topologically a 3 ball x time, with the radius of the 3 ball time dependent.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 16 2009, 03:28 PM)
Was the outer space of the BB different from the inter space of the BB?
You've been hanging around here long enough to know the answer to this - there was no outside the big bang, just like there is no outside the universe now.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 16 2009, 03:28 PM)
t=0, I do not understand the point. From the point what size do we consider the epicenter? 13.6 billion years, 6.8 billion years, 300,000 years?
As I said, the radius of the 3 - ball is time dependent, and it is growing. If you wind back the clock it's easy to see that the radius of the ball will shrink and eventually get to zero. That is the point where t = 0 in cosmological terms. There is no spatial centre to the expansion as it is not matter expanding - it is space that's expanding.
The Location of the Big Bang.
Point to any single point, particle, position, coordinate, space, cavity or quark in the whole universe and say,"That's where the Big Bang occurred!" and you would be correct. Just like pointing in any direction is pointing straight at where the BB occurred in space and in time.
Grumpy
Point to any single point, particle, position, coordinate, space, cavity or quark in the whole universe and say,"That's where the Big Bang occurred!" and you would be correct. Just like pointing in any direction is pointing straight at where the BB occurred in space and in time.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 16 2009, 10:06 PM)
The Location of the Big Bang.
Point to any single point, particle, position, coordinate, space, cavity or quark in the whole universe and say,"That's where the Big Bang occurred!" and you would be correct. Just like pointing in any direction is pointing straight at where the BB occurred in space and in time.
Grumpy
Exactly. It occured at one particular point at a finite time.
Point to any single point, particle, position, coordinate, space, cavity or quark in the whole universe and say,"That's where the Big Bang occurred!" and you would be correct. Just like pointing in any direction is pointing straight at where the BB occurred in space and in time.
Grumpy
Exactly. It occured at one particular point at a finite time.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Oct 17 2009, 12:21 AM)
Exactly. It occured at one particular point at a finite time.
No.
It occured at particular point in time, but at no particular point in space. It occured at ALL points in space.
No.
It occured at particular point in time, but at no particular point in space. It occured at ALL points in space.
AlexG
Your are of course wrong and have no idea of the nature of dimensions.
A dimension such as the spatial dimension does not contract or expand. There is no evidence for the expansion of space. The only thing you can do in a dimension is move. Movement in the spatial dimension is seen everyday. Movement in the time dimension is also another observation.
Please state the nature of the expansion of space. It is obvious the length of your car or you table is not expanding. There is no indication that the distance between the earth is expanding. The same is true for the earth and the sun, the sun and the next star… Where does this expansion start to take place?
It is also obvious that you can change the distance between any objects just by moving them through space.
The universe was created within a set of infinite dimensions. The spatial dimensions and the time dimension are just two of those dimensions. Even within the spatial dimensions, we have an infinite number of directions.
The recognition of three spatial dimensions is a result of the independent nature of any three directions. Within the spatial dimension you may only move one direction at a time in any number of infinite directions. You may only have three of those directions that allow independent actions.
We are able to show the relationship between dimensions in math because of the nature of this independence. From our observation of the independent nature of time with respect to any spatial dimensions we recognize time as an independent dimension and are able to show this relationship in math.
The time dimension is no different then any other spatial dimension except we are moving outward from the Big Bang in the time dimension at a rate equal to the speed of light. Any dimension would be recognized as the time dimension if our motion outward from the Big Bang had taken place in that dimension. No direction and no dimension has any different attributes then any other direction of dimension.
Even though this concept is simple it has the same problem that others before us had in accepting that the earth goes around the sun. It is in the nature of most because of conditioning not to be able to see these concepts. Being two dimensional and most of the time not able to think past three dimensions man has a difficult time with accepting an infinite number of dimensions let alone able to work with the concept.
QUOTE
It occurred at particular point in time, but at no particular point in space. It occurred at ALL points in space.
Your are of course wrong and have no idea of the nature of dimensions.
A dimension such as the spatial dimension does not contract or expand. There is no evidence for the expansion of space. The only thing you can do in a dimension is move. Movement in the spatial dimension is seen everyday. Movement in the time dimension is also another observation.
Please state the nature of the expansion of space. It is obvious the length of your car or you table is not expanding. There is no indication that the distance between the earth is expanding. The same is true for the earth and the sun, the sun and the next star… Where does this expansion start to take place?
It is also obvious that you can change the distance between any objects just by moving them through space.
The universe was created within a set of infinite dimensions. The spatial dimensions and the time dimension are just two of those dimensions. Even within the spatial dimensions, we have an infinite number of directions.
The recognition of three spatial dimensions is a result of the independent nature of any three directions. Within the spatial dimension you may only move one direction at a time in any number of infinite directions. You may only have three of those directions that allow independent actions.
We are able to show the relationship between dimensions in math because of the nature of this independence. From our observation of the independent nature of time with respect to any spatial dimensions we recognize time as an independent dimension and are able to show this relationship in math.
The time dimension is no different then any other spatial dimension except we are moving outward from the Big Bang in the time dimension at a rate equal to the speed of light. Any dimension would be recognized as the time dimension if our motion outward from the Big Bang had taken place in that dimension. No direction and no dimension has any different attributes then any other direction of dimension.
Even though this concept is simple it has the same problem that others before us had in accepting that the earth goes around the sun. It is in the nature of most because of conditioning not to be able to see these concepts. Being two dimensional and most of the time not able to think past three dimensions man has a difficult time with accepting an infinite number of dimensions let alone able to work with the concept.
QUOTE (AlexG+Oct 17 2009, 05:30 AM)
No.
It occured at particular point in time, but at no particular point in space. It occured at ALL points in space.
No - @ that specific point in time, space had yet to come.
It occured at particular point in time, but at no particular point in space. It occured at ALL points in space.
No - @ that specific point in time, space had yet to come.
tlocity,
If the BB had a conventional epicenter the Universe could not look the way it does today. The expansion of space comes from the focusing on one galaxy and seeing another galaxy change its relative position. This observation is seen as expansion of space and not the molecules (that comes much later apparently). The optical affects of a curved lens is possibly the reason for the distance difference but current main stream stopped looking for other reasons when the expansion of space solved many of the problems associated with the BB. When you focus on one object that object is viewed perpendicular to the lens. All other objects in the peripheral vision are seen through a curved lens. This could distort distances similar to the expansion theory. Most of the mass of the Universe is located in the center with a rather flat distribution. Similar to what we see in some galaxies. If the Universe is rotating like galaxies and light has momentum we are seeing the back side of galaxies where the Doppler and gravitational red shift are shifted the most. The further the galaxy the more towards the back of the galaxy we view. So distance is associated with red shift. My belief.
Nothing of what I said goes against relativity the same as expansion theorists say expansion can occur faster than the speed of light does not violate relativity. My belief.
prometheus,
When in time from t=0 did the BB stop spewing matter?
If the BB had a conventional epicenter the Universe could not look the way it does today. The expansion of space comes from the focusing on one galaxy and seeing another galaxy change its relative position. This observation is seen as expansion of space and not the molecules (that comes much later apparently). The optical affects of a curved lens is possibly the reason for the distance difference but current main stream stopped looking for other reasons when the expansion of space solved many of the problems associated with the BB. When you focus on one object that object is viewed perpendicular to the lens. All other objects in the peripheral vision are seen through a curved lens. This could distort distances similar to the expansion theory. Most of the mass of the Universe is located in the center with a rather flat distribution. Similar to what we see in some galaxies. If the Universe is rotating like galaxies and light has momentum we are seeing the back side of galaxies where the Doppler and gravitational red shift are shifted the most. The further the galaxy the more towards the back of the galaxy we view. So distance is associated with red shift. My belief.
Nothing of what I said goes against relativity the same as expansion theorists say expansion can occur faster than the speed of light does not violate relativity. My belief.
prometheus,
When in time from t=0 did the BB stop spewing matter?
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 17 2009, 12:40 PM)
Most of the mass of the Universe is located in the center with a rather flat distribution.
Outright lie.
Outright lie.
flyingbuttressman,
Here Read this.
or here
or here
WMAP is suggesting a flat Universe.
How about here.
I can find other references. My lie is your ignorance. My belief.
Here Read this.
or here
or here
WMAP is suggesting a flat Universe.
How about here.
I can find other references. My lie is your ignorance. My belief.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 17 2009, 03:33 PM)
flyingbuttressman,
Here Read this.
or here
or here
WMAP is suggesting a flat Universe.
How about here.
I can find other references. My lie is your ignorance. My belief.
Do you even read these articles?
They aren't even talking AT ALL about the distribution of mass.
They are talking about the SHAPE of the universe as a whole.
Does empty space continue on forever or does it curve back around?
It's a legitimate question.
You seem to have a problem with grasping even the most basic topics in a debate.
Fail.
Here Read this.
or here
or here
WMAP is suggesting a flat Universe.
How about here.
I can find other references. My lie is your ignorance. My belief.
Do you even read these articles?
They aren't even talking AT ALL about the distribution of mass.
They are talking about the SHAPE of the universe as a whole.
Does empty space continue on forever or does it curve back around?
It's a legitimate question.
You seem to have a problem with grasping even the most basic topics in a debate.
Fail.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 17 2009, 04:40 PM)
When in time from t=0 did the BB stop spewing matter?
When did the BB ever spew matter?
When did the BB ever spew matter?
QUOTE (prometheus+Oct 17 2009, 08:00 PM)
When did the BB ever spew matter?
You could ask; when did 4Dguy ever spew sense?
You could ask; when did 4Dguy ever spew sense?
flyingbuttressman
Of course.
With a flat universe euclidean geometry can be accurate to within 2%. So a rotating universe would appear to be an expanding universe.
While the Universe appears somewhat spherical the highest density is in the equator region in the representations I have seen.
Of course.
With a flat universe euclidean geometry can be accurate to within 2%. So a rotating universe would appear to be an expanding universe.
While the Universe appears somewhat spherical the highest density is in the equator region in the representations I have seen.
Fail.
This is your desire for me. So no matter what fail is what you are determined to label me with. Its OK with me that you are prejudice before I even post anything. You have the type of personality that feels the need to put down others to feel good about yourself. I understand your type. You are much better than I am. There don't you feel better?
prometheus,
Never, to my mind.
Geoff Mollusc
Never, to my mind.
Geoff Mollusc
You could ask; when did 4Dguy ever spew sense?
Have enough Dollars you do not need sense.
QUOTE
They are talking about the SHAPE of the universe as a whole.
Of course.
With a flat universe euclidean geometry can be accurate to within 2%. So a rotating universe would appear to be an expanding universe.
While the Universe appears somewhat spherical the highest density is in the equator region in the representations I have seen.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They are talking about the SHAPE of the universe as a whole. |
Of course.
With a flat universe euclidean geometry can be accurate to within 2%. So a rotating universe would appear to be an expanding universe.
While the Universe appears somewhat spherical the highest density is in the equator region in the representations I have seen.
Fail.
This is your desire for me. So no matter what fail is what you are determined to label me with. Its OK with me that you are prejudice before I even post anything. You have the type of personality that feels the need to put down others to feel good about yourself. I understand your type. You are much better than I am. There don't you feel better?
prometheus,
QUOTE
When did the BB ever spew matter?
Never, to my mind.
Geoff Mollusc
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When did the BB ever spew matter? |
Never, to my mind.
Geoff Mollusc
You could ask; when did 4Dguy ever spew sense?
Have enough Dollars you do not need sense.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 18 2009, 08:01 PM)
So a rotating universe would appear to be an expanding universe.
A rotating universe would mean that all galaxies would expand outward from a single pole. They aren't.
Find this representation and link to it. I sincerely doubt that it exists or that you interpreted it correctly.
A rotating universe would mean that all galaxies would expand outward from a single pole. They aren't.
QUOTE
While the Universe appears somewhat spherical the highest density is in the equator region in the representations I have seen.
Find this representation and link to it. I sincerely doubt that it exists or that you interpreted it correctly.
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 15 2009, 10:22 PM)
I would be thrilled if you were the first one to prove me wrong by saying: "Hey, I understand why my position is incorrect, I am willing to read and learn more on the subject and I will be back when I know more".
I used to think of the big bang as an explosion, caused by high energy-density in a compact volume. I also thought that the universe expanded as a result of the explosion and, at some point, would reach the limits of its momentum and begin contracting back toward the center, which would eventually result in another big bang. This, I assumed, was an infinitely repeating process of expansion, contraction, and rebirth.
Now, since I have learned about dilation as a form of entropy, through the posts of 4D and others, the balloon metaphor makes more sense to me, since dilation-entropy seems more like "drifting apart" than an energy-driven explosion/expansion.
What I am wondering is whether dilation is occurring uniformly at all points in the universe, since the big bang, or if it continues only relative to mass-density, and it was just coincidence that certain parts of the big bang expanded as dense "clumps" while others dilated more quickly into less dense areas?
Also, since I read that the red-shift is greater in galaxies furthest away, could this be because relatively uniform dilation appears most pronounced farthest away because it is the sum of all dilation between there and here? In other words, if 100 people were standing in a line on roller skates, and each one pushed the one in front of him at 1m/s, the speed of the skater in the front of the line would be 100m/s from the perspective of the first, even though no single skater would be moving faster than 1m/s from the skaters directly in front of or behind him? Does this analogy make sense?
I used to think of the big bang as an explosion, caused by high energy-density in a compact volume. I also thought that the universe expanded as a result of the explosion and, at some point, would reach the limits of its momentum and begin contracting back toward the center, which would eventually result in another big bang. This, I assumed, was an infinitely repeating process of expansion, contraction, and rebirth.
Now, since I have learned about dilation as a form of entropy, through the posts of 4D and others, the balloon metaphor makes more sense to me, since dilation-entropy seems more like "drifting apart" than an energy-driven explosion/expansion.
What I am wondering is whether dilation is occurring uniformly at all points in the universe, since the big bang, or if it continues only relative to mass-density, and it was just coincidence that certain parts of the big bang expanded as dense "clumps" while others dilated more quickly into less dense areas?
Also, since I read that the red-shift is greater in galaxies furthest away, could this be because relatively uniform dilation appears most pronounced farthest away because it is the sum of all dilation between there and here? In other words, if 100 people were standing in a line on roller skates, and each one pushed the one in front of him at 1m/s, the speed of the skater in the front of the line would be 100m/s from the perspective of the first, even though no single skater would be moving faster than 1m/s from the skaters directly in front of or behind him? Does this analogy make sense?
4Dguy maybe this will help.
The reference of the universe being flat is not in a spatial physical sense. The term is used with the concept of the expansion of the universe. The consideration is if the universe is expanding, contracting, or static. The term open is used if the universe is considered forever expanding. The term closed is used if it is thought that the universe will one day contract and fall back to the start and the term flat is used if the universe is thought to be in balance and will remain so throughout all time.
It is sad that these terms were ever given to the process under consideration. Some in a mistaken attempt to put a physical structure to the universe thought that the nature of the expansion could translate into a physical form.
The physical form of the universe is well established to be a start from a point and an expansion outward from that point.
The Big Bang is the name given to that starting point. The reason the Big Bang stuck is that is does describe what we have discovered from observation.
The universe has only the energy given to it in the very small Planck time at the start. We know and see that when energy is given to a system in a short period of time it produces a Bang.
After the initial start, no other energy has been seen to have been added. Everything in the universe is moving at the same rate today as it did right after the Big Bang. There is now some question about the rate having changed over the long time from the Big Bang. The degree of change that is in question is very small and look more like a lack of understanding of the nature of the expansion.
Many people are unable to understand the nature of dimensions. The math is quite clear in the description of the multi-dimensional nature of the universe.
Anyone can see this by just drawing a two-dimensional drawing. First, place a point in the center of a piece of paper such that the point represents the Big Bang. Any line drawn outward from the point is a path that any object in the universe must follow. If you now draw two lines outward from the center, you will notice that the lines move apart. You will also notice that if any objects on the lines move outward at a fixed rate not only does the distance between the two objects increase but the rate of separation also increases.
In this drawing, any circle drawn that connects the two objects is a spatial direction and the lines outward from the Big Bang is the time direction.
You may now make as many of these drawing that you wish to represent any spatial direction. Of the many drawing you may make you are only able to make three drawings that would be the three spatial directions.
The transition outward from the Big Bang we recognize as time. It can now be seen that all objects, as well as all other things in the universe, are able transition from the Big Bang and have no spatial transition.
All of this agrees with the math. We are able to divide the consideration of the nature of the universe in this way because all functions that can take place in each drawing are no different than any other drawing. A force applied to an object in any drawing will act and have the same result as the same force applied in any other drawing. The universe is uniform. The physical functions in all dimensions are identical.
The concept of space expanding falls apart when you consider that more distant objects are moving apart faster then closer objects. How does space know that you are looking at one object over a longer distance the another object? Are we to go back and to try and make us the center of the universe.
The reference of the universe being flat is not in a spatial physical sense. The term is used with the concept of the expansion of the universe. The consideration is if the universe is expanding, contracting, or static. The term open is used if the universe is considered forever expanding. The term closed is used if it is thought that the universe will one day contract and fall back to the start and the term flat is used if the universe is thought to be in balance and will remain so throughout all time.
It is sad that these terms were ever given to the process under consideration. Some in a mistaken attempt to put a physical structure to the universe thought that the nature of the expansion could translate into a physical form.
The physical form of the universe is well established to be a start from a point and an expansion outward from that point.
The Big Bang is the name given to that starting point. The reason the Big Bang stuck is that is does describe what we have discovered from observation.
The universe has only the energy given to it in the very small Planck time at the start. We know and see that when energy is given to a system in a short period of time it produces a Bang.
After the initial start, no other energy has been seen to have been added. Everything in the universe is moving at the same rate today as it did right after the Big Bang. There is now some question about the rate having changed over the long time from the Big Bang. The degree of change that is in question is very small and look more like a lack of understanding of the nature of the expansion.
Many people are unable to understand the nature of dimensions. The math is quite clear in the description of the multi-dimensional nature of the universe.
Anyone can see this by just drawing a two-dimensional drawing. First, place a point in the center of a piece of paper such that the point represents the Big Bang. Any line drawn outward from the point is a path that any object in the universe must follow. If you now draw two lines outward from the center, you will notice that the lines move apart. You will also notice that if any objects on the lines move outward at a fixed rate not only does the distance between the two objects increase but the rate of separation also increases.
In this drawing, any circle drawn that connects the two objects is a spatial direction and the lines outward from the Big Bang is the time direction.
You may now make as many of these drawing that you wish to represent any spatial direction. Of the many drawing you may make you are only able to make three drawings that would be the three spatial directions.
The transition outward from the Big Bang we recognize as time. It can now be seen that all objects, as well as all other things in the universe, are able transition from the Big Bang and have no spatial transition.
All of this agrees with the math. We are able to divide the consideration of the nature of the universe in this way because all functions that can take place in each drawing are no different than any other drawing. A force applied to an object in any drawing will act and have the same result as the same force applied in any other drawing. The universe is uniform. The physical functions in all dimensions are identical.
The concept of space expanding falls apart when you consider that more distant objects are moving apart faster then closer objects. How does space know that you are looking at one object over a longer distance the another object? Are we to go back and to try and make us the center of the universe.
tlocity,
Yes I know a flat Universe only means Euclidean geometry is acceptable. I also know we see the same distance in all directions. Since we have to be somewhere in the Universe the relative middle is a possibility. There are two possibilities in a flat Universe if we see the same distance in every direction. Either the photon can only go the distance we see or we are in the relative center of the Universe. Wouldn't it be a hoot if the ancients were correct about us being in the center of the Universe? Given the observations what other possibilities are there for our position? The collisions seen in space referenced as dark energy could be just gravity waves dissipating.
Here is the observation that the milky way is near the center and the center is lit up more with the line of the equator distribution of mass greater.
Yes I know a flat Universe only means Euclidean geometry is acceptable. I also know we see the same distance in all directions. Since we have to be somewhere in the Universe the relative middle is a possibility. There are two possibilities in a flat Universe if we see the same distance in every direction. Either the photon can only go the distance we see or we are in the relative center of the Universe. Wouldn't it be a hoot if the ancients were correct about us being in the center of the Universe? Given the observations what other possibilities are there for our position? The collisions seen in space referenced as dark energy could be just gravity waves dissipating.
Here is the observation that the milky way is near the center and the center is lit up more with the line of the equator distribution of mass greater.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.