Big Bang - Where's the hole?

reply to post by jiggerj


Jiggerj...how many times do you need the Big Bang explained to you?

How many times do we have to drag out the expanding balloon or the rising raisin bread visuals?
How many times do we have to say that space is not expanding from or around a single point?
How many times do we have to say that galaxies are not moving out from a central point?
How many times do we have to say that the Earth is not a unique perspective? That, if you were at any other location in the universe, all of the galaxies and other objects (including Earth) would still appear to be moving away from you in all directions.
How many times does all of this have to be explained to you? And not just to you, but to everyone like you who can't seem to grasp one of the most simple concepts in all of cosmology.

And now we've got to explain to you that the universe doesn't have a hole in it? You can't be serious.
If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the hole is in your ability to conceptualize.

reply to post by CLPrime


how do you explain the universe starting from a single point,,,, and accelaratingly expanding from that point,,, evenly too? yet not ever moving away from that point?

Originally posted by Atzil321

To the op... There is no centre of the universe. According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion, it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places.

How can this be true? How can everything start with a teeny-tiny singularity and yet not have a point of origin?

reply to post by ImaFungi


The last time a cosmologist seriously suggested that the universe was finite and expanding from a single point, the Cold War was still a current event. No serious cosmologist will suggest such a thing today. The problem is with people who are still spinning their wheels in the information they read in those semi-scientific books from the 80s.

There are three possibilities for the universe:

1) flat and infinite
2) spherical and finite
3) hyperbolic and infinite

Spherical and hyperbolic have been almost entirely ruled out. Most likely, the universe is flat and infinite. That means it's probably always been flat and infinite.

And infinite space has no center. When it expands, all points throughout it expand equally. No singularity, no central point, no hole. Just uniform expansion.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

The last time a cosmologist seriously suggested that the universe was finite and expanding from a single point, the Cold War was still a current event. No serious cosmologist will suggest such a thing today. The problem is with people who are still spinning their wheels in the information they read in those semi-scientific books from the 80s.

There are three possibilities for the universe:

1) flat and infinite
2) spherical and finite
3) hyperbolic and infinite

Spherical and hyperbolic have been almost entirely ruled out. Most likely, the universe is flat and infinite. That means it's probably always been flat and infinite.

And infinite space has no center. When it expands, all points throughout it expand equally. No singularity, no central point, no hole. Just uniform expansion.

ok then,,,,,, i thought you believed in the big bang,,,,, and i thought this thread was geared towards those that did as well..

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by jiggerj

 

galaxies do collide

Yeah, as I soon I read this I was reminded that the Andromeda galaxy is heading for us. Did this galaxy pull a U-turn or is it simply...? Actually, I don't know. Is it like two ships sitting side by side with the motion of the ocean pushing them together?

reply to post by ImaFungi


This thread is trying to literally find holes in a theory that is neither current nor accurately represented.

reply to post by CLPrime


also what is meant by flat, is that the universe expands laterally ?

as opposed to evenly in all directions?

if the space the universe is in is infinite,,, what initially stopped the universe from expanding evenly in all directions? initial conditions? laws of physics?

Originally posted by AFewGoodWomen
My bad...
I thought this was a porn forum.

And, so did this song.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

This thread is trying to literally find holes in a theory that is neither current nor accurately represented.

I think physicist should thank people for attempting to look for holes in their theories,,,, as for not being accurately depicted,,, earlier you just said big bang is hardly believed anymore ,,

can you give us a simple accurate depiction of the big bang? or is it pointless since it is wrong ( why else would it not be currently accepted)

reply to post by jiggerj


Galaxies have motion. They can be moving closer, further away, or laterally/parallel relative to each other. This is proper motion.

The "moving away" caused by universal expansion is not motion. The galaxies are not moving. The space between galaxies is growing. Locally (on intergalactic scales), the relative proper motion of two galaxies can be enough to causes the two to move closer together, even "impact." This is only because the outward spatial expansion only becomes significant over much larger distances.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

also what is meant by flat, is that the universe expands laterally ?

The universe is 3-dimensionally flat. Two lines that begin parallel will stay parallel. Think of it this way: a sheet of paper is 2-dimensionally flat, and a 3-dimensional volume is just a pile of sheets of paper, so such a 3-dimensional volume is also "flat."

Physics also allows for curved space. This is like wrapping a sheet of paper around a ball. Two initially parallel lines won't stay parallel in a curved space.

The universe is expanding evenly in all 3 dimensions.

the age of the universe is only what we as humans have been able to measure. we humans use machines that can measure wavelengths of different forms of energy, so we have some idea as to how it relates to our own base knowledge paradigm. this universe can be 50 trillion years old or more, it's just those wavelengths of energy have not made their way into our sphere of verifiable measurement. the universe could concieveably have already started its own collapse, but, due to the vast distance, it has not been measured yet.
for me, saying the big bang happened, along with supposedly knowing the age of the universe is highly arrogant, and speculative at best.

Originally posted by Mapkar
If "space" isn't "nothing" because it has stuff floating in it then does nothing exist?

Technically speaking, if "space" was floating in "nothing" was there ever truly "nothing?"

Space wasn't always "floating in nothing" - as I said, space was created with the Big Bang.

Or, I should say Spacetime.

All you need for space is two reference points. Before the expansion of the universe - before the Plank era - there was only the singularity. That is one reference point. Ergo, no space existed. When light and other stuff started escaping, reference points were created and thus so was spacetime. After that it began to be created exponentially, and still is.

"Nothing" cannot ever exist to us. That doesn't mean it never did exist, or doesn't still exist somewhere outside of our universe. There are theories that certain types of black hole can give us glimpses "outside" into the nothing, or perhaps another dimension/universe.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Jiggerj...how many times do you need the Big Bang explained to you?

How many times do we have to drag out the expanding balloon or the rising raisin bread visuals?
How many times do we have to say that space is not expanding from or around a single point?
How many times do we have to say that galaxies are not moving out from a central point?
How many times do we have to say that the Earth is not a unique perspective? That, if you were at any other location in the universe, all of the galaxies and other objects (including Earth) would still appear to be moving away from you in all directions.
How many times does all of this have to be explained to you? And not just to you, but to everyone like you who can't seem to grasp one of the most simple concepts in all of cosmology.

And now we've got to explain to you that the universe doesn't have a hole in it? You can't be serious.
If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the hole is in your ability to conceptualize.

Who the &*^% are you to talk to me that way? If I want to look at a subject from a million different angles, then you need to shut the %^$# up and walk away from my threads. Frikkin' child.

reply to post by jiggerj


Dont forget, a lot of little bangw have happened since the big bang. Supernovas, black holes happen.... When a supernova happenw particles are blown in all directions...and iirc they can coalesce into nebulas and become galaxies, etc...... Little bangs have probably filled the hole from the big bang. But then why is the red shift so even? Wtf? What if it was a super massive black hole that collapsed beyond the singularity, forming a new universe? Would there be a wormhole there now?

What happens if a nuclear bomb goes into a blackhole? Wouldnt criticality occur? Wouldnt it explode inwards? Where to?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

I think physicist should thank people for attempting to look for holes in their theories,,,,

Certainly. Theories should always be critically scrutinized. But, to scrutinize a theory, you first have to actually understand that theory.

as for not being accurately depicted,,, earlier you just said big bang is hardly believed anymore ,,

I never said that. I said the singularity and expanding from a central point parts aren't part of current theory. The Big Bang Theory still exists, just not in the way jiggerj has presented it.

can you give us a simple accurate depiction of the big bang? or is it pointless since it is wrong ( why else would it not be currently accepted)

There are a couple different possibilities for the Big Bang. One is that the universe started as a singularity, it spontaneously "collapsed" (that is, in the Quantum Mechanical meaning of the term) instantaneously to an infinite space filled with vacuum energy, which then caused the initial period of rapid expansion. Another, which is my preferred version, is that the universe "began" as an infinite empty space in which the quantum vacuum collapsed, releasing a whole bunch of energy and causing the initial period of rapid inflation -- no singularity involved at all.

Singularities, by their very nature, are erroneous.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Galaxies have motion. They can be moving closer, further away, or laterally/parallel relative to each other. This is proper motion.

The "moving away" caused by universal expansion is not motion. The galaxies are not moving. The space between galaxies is growing. Locally (on intergalactic scales), the relative proper motion of two galaxies can be enough to causes the two to move closer together, even "impact." This is only because the outward spatial expansion only becomes significant over much larger distances.

I don't care what you say. Get out of my thread!

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Galaxies have motion. They can be moving closer, further away, or laterally/parallel relative to each other. This is proper motion.

The "moving away" caused by universal expansion is not motion. The galaxies are not moving. The space between galaxies is growing. Locally (on intergalactic scales), the relative proper motion of two galaxies can be enough to causes the two to move closer together, even "impact." This is only because the outward spatial expansion only becomes significant over much larger distances.

isnt the definition of increasing distance between two objects,,, movement?

Originally posted by jiggerj

Who the &*^% are you to talk to me that way? If I want to look at a subject from a million different angles, then you need to shut the %^$# up and walk away from my threads. Frikkin' child.

If you're going to "look at a subject from a million different angles," then you really need to understand the subject.

Oh, and I want to sound more like an adult, so... &@($&#%&$($)@*$%$(#*$^@@!&*
There, I'm all grown up now.